Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

BILL PRESENTED

WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

Mr. Paul Tyler, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Simon Hughes and Diana Maddock, presented a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31st March 1995; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 15 July, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

Points of Order

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have received any assurances from the appropriate Minister in relation to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, as there was a unanimous vote in the House last week which ordered the

Government to give adequate time to allow that Bill to be approved and placed on the statute book. The Bill would give equal rights to millions of disabled people up and down the country.
In view of the unusual situation that developed last week—it was the first time in my 24 years in this place that I have seen such a motion passed—and in view of those instructions, have you been assured by the Minister that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill will be given time by the Government so that it reaches the statute book and provides those rights for all those citizens?

Madam Speaker: It is not normal practice for the Speaker to be assured by the Government on any issue of that nature. It is for the House to determine whether the Bill proceeds speedily through the House today when we arrive at that particular point.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you have often told us, you are the protector of Back-Bench interests which means that you are the protector of the interests of a constituency to have a Back-Bench Member of Parliament. Can you tell us when you will take the view that there is no further point in the Government's running away from a by-election in Eastleigh which should have been held by now?
The Government have now been destroyed in the local elections, and particularly in the local elections in Eastleigh, and it is time that they had the courage to face the electorate in a by-election there.

Madam Speaker: I am well aware that election campaigning has been going on for some time outside the House as well as inside it. However, as Speaker, I am certainly not going to be dragged into any campaigning.

Orders of the Day — Chiropractors Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 3

DEATH OF A CHIROPRACTOR

'. On registering the death of a registered chiropractor, a registrar of births and deaths shall send forthwith by post to the Registrar a copy certified under his hand of the entry relating to the death in the register of deaths; and the cost of the certificate and of sending it by post shall be payable by the Registrar to the registrar of births and deaths from whom it is received.'.—[Mr. Spring.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause duplicates the provisions that obtain in the Opticians Act 1958. It would place a duty on a registrar of births and deaths to notify the Registrar of Chiropractors in any case when the death of a registered chiropractor was recorded. That would lower the risk of fraudulent use of a deceased chiropractor's identity.
When dealing with the spine, someone who is perpetrating a fraud can do considerable damage. There must be protection. We are aware of a mental disorder whereby people choose to masquerade as doctors or surgeons. That disorder has been well reported. As opticians deal with a delicate part of the body, they have sought to use a provision which I believe should now be applied to chiropractic. Opticians have sought to protect their patients from exposure to risk and injury and I believe that chiropractors would, through the Bill, wish to do the same.
The Bill specifically contains a provision to prevent fraud. New clause 3 seeks to ensure that the identity of a deceased chiropractor cannot be used to achieve registration by fraudulent means. As registration and the raising of the quality of professionalism of chiropractors is at the very heart of the Bill, I believe that the provision is important.
There is also a simple human aspect to the provision. For the family of a deceased person, it would stop the distress caused by the family continuing to receive, for some time, telephone calls or letters after the death of that person. Of course, the General Chiropractic Council would not be guilty of such an error.
The new clause would bring chiropractors into line with another respected group of medical professionals—the opticians. It would bring about good practice, which all of us want to see and which is at the heart of the Bill.
Stealing other people's identities has become big business. We know that it happens in the criminal world, with the stealing of passports; stealing other people's identities has become a big business among the criminal fraternity. People have stolen the identities of people of comparable age to very negative effect. When we are dealing with health issues, we must ensure that such fraud does not happen and that we protect the public against it.
All of us who have had chiropractic treatment know that in the process of manipulation, there is a delicate balance to be achieved in relieving stiffness and tension in the spine. If it is not done professionally, it can lead to

considerable damage. The Bill, in ensuring a proper register to give people the assurance that properly trained and recognised individuals will be the only practitioners, requires the new clause. It would prevent frauds from being perpetrated, with all the unhappy consequences. It would remove the threat of a false identity being assumed after the death of a chiropractor.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) for tabling the new clause, although I have several points to make about it. There are, of course, already many ways in which the Bill, as drafted, would ensure that the good character and suitability of chiropractors was recognised. There are many safeguards in it to ensure that—

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that the best way of helping people with spinal difficulties today in this House is to be as quick as possible in dealing with this Bill to get on to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which otherwise will be endangered?

Mr. Sackville: A new clause has been tabled and I have to put the Government's view, which I shall do as briefly as I can. There are many provisions in the Bill that would prevent the fraudulent registration of a chiropractor. In the very unlikely event that the whole process, as contained in the Bill, were bypassed, there would be other factors at work which would make the new clause unnecessary.
There is a published register of chiropractors, which is an extract from the main register. If a colleague died, it is very unlikely that members of this close-knit profession would not become aware of that death. There are newsletters and all sorts of ways in which the death would become apparent.

Mr. Roger Knapman: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill would set up quite a bureaucracy, with a large council of 19 members to look after 900 people. Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the new clause would place obligations and, presumably, costs on the registrar of births and deaths?

Mr. Sackville: Indeed, the new clause is unnecessarily regulatory. It would add nothing to the security of registration of the profession. The most likely source of a fraudulent registration would be the death of an overseas chiropractor after which someone passed himself off as that person and set up in practice. We have no assurance that the new clause would prevent that from happening. The new clause is unnecessary and adds nothing to what is already in the Bill. I therefore advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Spring: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

THE REGISTRAR OF CHIROPRACTORS

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We now come to amendment No. 9, with which it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8. I call Mr. Spring.

Mr. Spring: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. David Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) clearly has no intention of moving the amendment. He is simply wasting the House's time. I urge you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to move on to the next business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds had risen in his place. He is assembling his notes and I imagine that he is now ready to move the amendment.

Mr. Spring: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 18, at end insert—
'(1A) The General Council shall not appoint a person under subsection (1) unless he is a qualified solicitor or is otherwise legally qualified.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 8, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(7) The General Council shall appoint a person to be deputy to the Registrar; and a person so appointed shall be known as the Deputy Registrar, shall hold office for such period and on such terms as the General Council may determine and shall exercise such functions (including, in particular, the function of deputising for the Registrar when the Registrar is absent or otherwise unable to act) as the General Council may determine.'.

Mr. Spring: The amendment proposes that the general council should not appoint a person under subsection (1) unless he is a qualified solicitor or otherwise legally qualified. Hon. Members know that we have a superabundance of lawyers here. We may be tempted, therefore, to think that we do not need any more lawyers to be involved in any proceedings. However, the fact is that the amendment—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the fatuousness of the amendment? The registrar of the General Medical Council has never been a qualified lawyer. This is the most absurd, time-wasting nonsense.

Mr. Spring: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will wait a moment, he will hear me discuss this point and why it is important to consider it.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend consider the point that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has already made points of order and interventions, and has taken up far more of the House's time than has any other hon. Member present? With respect, that is not in any way unusual—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us be clear. Hon. Members have the right to be heard in the House. We have a Bill before us and we have amendments that are in order. As long as amendments are moved—this one is being moved—the House must listen. I am not prepared to listen to sedentary comments from certain quarters of the House any further this morning.

Mr. Spring: The point is that the amendment would ensure that the general council had someone who was legally qualified and with an appropriate breadth of knowledge; knowledge of the law would be helpful. Through the Bill, we are trying to upgrade the reputation of chiropractors. We have looked at the whole question of health, and at the whole question of raising the

professionalism of chiropractors and their recognition in the community. It is now important that someone who is at the centre of the process should be legally qualified.
We live in a time of considerable litigation against individuals who practise various forms of medicine, whether complementary medicine, veterinary medicine or any other kind. It is important, therefore, that the individual who is at the centre of the general council should have knowledge of the law. That would be extremely helpful to members of the chiropractic profession. Given the nature of society and the potential for law suits, an understanding of the law would be extremely helpful.
The amendment would achieve something else. It would strengthen the feeling among those who use chiropractors, of whom there are an increasing number, that there is someone centrally placed who understands what the law is about. I believe that that presents a valid safeguard.
Chiropractors have been around for almost 100 years, but it is only now that the medical profession is accepting them as a form of complementary medicine. Therefore, it would be helpful to assist the encouragement of general practitioners and the general public to accept them by making sure that the individual who supervises and regulates the profession has a knowledge of the law. That would be useful and important, especially in view of the history of chiropractic in Britain. After all, the registrar maintains the register of chiropractors and fulfils other duties placed on him by the general council.
As I said, people may laugh about the superabundance of lawyers in the House or outside, but the fact remains that in every aspect of our national life, knowledge of the law is becoming increasingly important. We are an increasingly litigious society. People who may be dissatisfied, for example, with the service that they receive from chiropractors will have the assurance that the person at the heart of the regulatory organisation has a profound knowledge of the law. That is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. David Lidington: While I am sure that my hon. Friend has good intentions, I hope that, on consideration, he will withdraw his amendment. If he does not, I shall ask the House to reject it.
There are three reasons why the amendment is unnecessary. First, the post of registrar will encompass not simply giving legal advice to the general council but a range of administrative and executive tasks, not all of which require legal experience.
Secondly, conditions of employment are already subject to the decision of the general council, which is, in turn, subject to the Privy Council. If the general council feels that a lawyer is the best candidate for the job, it has the right to appoint one, but it should not be prevented by statute from appointing a non-lawyer if that person is the best candidate for the job.

Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend expand a little on why the Privy Council should select members instead of the Secretary of State, who could be questioned in this place?

Mr. Lidington: It is simply a matter of following the precedent of other self-regulating medical professions. We have followed the procedure under the Osteopaths Act 1993 and that for the General Medical Council.
The third reason why the clause is unnecessary is that the Bill provides for the general council to appoint expert legal assessors. That is a duty of the general council under the Bill. Therefore, the general council and the registrar will have expert legal advice available to them without the need for the amendment.
Amendment No. 8 refers to the deputy registrar. It is not a sensible use of legislation to provide for every eventuality. The Bill allows the general council to appoint and employ staff in addition to the registrar. It will almost certainly need to do so and it should be left to the council's discretion.

Mr. Sackville: I should like to respond. The amendment has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). I can certainly understand the reasons behind it. There is no doubt that a legal training is of enormous importance in many administrative functions, but the amendment is probably over-prescriptive. The general council should be allowed the freedom to decide who is the best candidate. Therefore, I advise the House to reject the amendment.
I have no wish to denigrate the legal profession, which is well represented on both sides of the House. I think that the only reason why I had the honour of being selected for my seat was that the boundary changes to the Bolton, West constituency failed to penetrate the inner recesses of the Inner Temple back in 1983.
The system of regulation, as seen first in the Osteopaths Act 1993, which is reflected in the Bill, marks a fresh approach to professional self-regulation. That is central to the reason why I advise the House to reject my hon. Friend's amendment. There will be no well-established precedents set to guide decisions. To a great extent, the general council would have to advance across unknown territory. The same point could easily be made in connection with the post and duties of the registrar, who will arguably be the second most important post in the statutory scheme, after the chairman of the general council.
It would clearly be in the interests of the profession and the general council to ensure, for example, that the person appointed was conversant with both the legal obligations arising out of the scheme and the particular challenges presented by the administrative requirements of a health profession.
I also have some worries about the impression that might be created if the duties of the registrar were seen as purely legalistic. The post of registrar, who is responsible for the direction of the general council, has considerable flexibility. If the post was always filled by a person with a legal qualification, it might be expected that his duties were primarily legalistic. I am sure that that is not the overall intention of the Bill. Indeed, the amendment calls into question the requirement in clause 27 to appoint legal assessors to provide advice to the registrar, in addition to the various statutory committees.
I do not wish to imply that a lawyer could not fill the post effectively, but I am sure that many other individuals would also be eminently suitable. Therefore, to restrict the appointment to a lawyer would place a significant limit on the council's freedom of action and arbitrarily rule out of contention many candidates who would be suitable. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment would serve a particularly useful purpose.
The general council would be able to appoint a lawyer if it thought that such a person was the most suitable. There would be little to be gained and, in my opinion, something to be lost in making the post of registrar a closed shop. It would cut across the self-regulatory nature of the scheme that lies at the heart of the Bill and has been shown to be successful in the Osteopaths Act, which was passed by the House last year.
The principle of statutory regulation implies that Parliament entrusts that profession with its own regulation and development. In the case of the chiropractic profession, that is a suitable way of doing it. For that reason, we have not sought to incorporate every last detail in the Bill. We must leave the profession a lot of room for discretion and to find out what requirements it will have in practice.
At first sight, it might be said that amendment No. 8, which refers to the deputy registrar, seems sensible, but, again, it is overly prescriptive. That amendment and the imposition of the need for a lawyer to serve as registrar are both proposals which I would advise the House to reject.

Mr. Spring: In view of my hon. Friend's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The contents of the Bill have been fully discussed in previous stages and I shall not add anything to what has been said. However, I wish to take a few minutes, for reasons that I have discussed with the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), to dwell on the future of the chiropractic profession and to respond to some serious anxieties expressed by members of the profession during the Bill's progress through the House.
The chiropractic profession sought statutory regulation and its ardent advocacy persuaded me to take up the Bill in the first place. The profession has aimed to ensure high standards for patients and to protect its good name against any possibility of infiltration by quacks and charlatans, taking advantage of the increasing popularity of chiropractic among patients. The third aim has been to bring chiropractic still closer to the mainstream of medicine and to make it more trusted by doctors, by virtue of statutory protection and the assurance of common standards of competence and training.
The various voluntary associations pulled together to campaign for the Bill through the chiropractic registration steering group. I congratulate the group on its work. The co-operation between different schools of chiropractic and mutual respect among chiropractors from the different schools are encouraging signs for the future. I hope that the profession will continue along that road.
If the Bill is enacted—I hope that it will be—the role of those voluntary associations is bound to change. In the short term, the profession could still determine certain things collectively; it might draw up standards of proficiency based on existing competency, of a standard common to the various chiropractic schools, and it could draft a shared code of professional ethics.
It is important for the profession to beware trying to judge matters that will become the proper responsibility of the general council if the Bill is enacted. Under the Bill, the


general council will have the responsibility of setting professional and educational standards for the entire profession.
I will give the House a practical example. Some years ago, the various voluntary associations agreed that all chiropractic schools should achieve common standards within five years of any statutory system of regulation coming into force. The standard was that set by the European Council on Chiropractic Education—as it existed in 1991.
Today, we find that the Anglo-European college in Bournemouth is the only school in Europe, let alone the United Kingdom, to meet that standard, so the Bournemouth standard could be said to be the gold standard for chiropractic. It would be wrong to assume, however, that the Bournemouth standard must be taken as the minimum standard throughout the chiropractic profession, whatever may happen.
The general council, representing the entire profession, must set the standard of professional education, to protect the interests of patients and the reputation of the profession alike. Those standards and the type of courses that will train students to meet them are bound to change as medicine and chiropractic techniques develop and evolve. That is why no educational standard is described in the Bill. Instead, that task is rightly left to the general council and the education committee when the Bill becomes law, as we hope it will.
Recognition of qualifications should be based on the outcome of training—not on the process by which training is carried out—and the standards achieved. There is, therefore, no reason in principle why some courses should not continue to be part time, to include distance learning or to be of any duration. The key is that every course should meet the standards of proficiency laid down by the general council for safe and competent chiropractic practice.
Like the King's Fund working party, I believe that the initial standards of proficiency will need to reflect existing standards in the profession. That will ensure that the profession moves forward together from a basis founded on the reality of practice and not on a vision of what it might or ought to be like in the future—a future which, because of developments in chiropractic and medicine, could be impossible to predict with certainty.
The general council should be free to adopt a dynamic strategy based on its assessment of the present needs of the profession. It should not be constrained to a rigid commitment to a standard that it played no part in drawing up and which might be out of date when the relevant decisions have to be made.
The intention behind the voluntary agreement between chiropractic associations remains as valid as ever and it is embodied in my Bill. The intention is to provide a guarantee to the profession, the public and patients that standards will not simply be maintained, but will rise and be encouraged to rise.
Some chiropractors may exceed the standards set by the general council. That is welcome and it is only to be expected. No chiropractor will be penalised for being ahead of the game. Such a chiropractor may have much to offer his or her colleagues when the general council introduces rules on the supervision of professionally registered chiropractors in due course. The profession will be able gradually to achieve its long-term goal to raise standards across the board by a process of evolution.
The voluntary associations may well continue. Indeed, it is important that they should do so and that chiropractors should continue to belong to them, at least until the register is opened. In that way, we will ensure a smooth transition from a voluntary to a statutory scheme.
The role of the voluntary associations is bound to change, however, and the general council will take over many of their functions. If the Bill is successful, the council will be the means by which all chiropractors are represented and by which they will represent themselves to others. All members of the general council will be required to act as ambassadors for the profession and to set aside previous loyalties to the school where they were trained or the voluntary association to which they belonged. All registered chiropractors will owe a duty of professional respect to their registered colleagues, similar to the duty and respect owed to colleagues in a voluntary association at present.
If the progress that the associations have already made, by gradually working together and harmonising their approaches, is continued and consolidated, the general council will find it increasingly easy to take up and perform its statutory duties, which can only be in the interests of the chiropractic profession and the patients it serves.
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, I have been heartened by the support that I have received from all quarters of the House. I must also place on record my thanks to the schools of chiropractic, to many chiropractors and to patients who have given up their time to discuss with me the challenges facing the profession.
I have been enormously impressed by the dedication of chiropractors in this country and by their commitment to serving their patients and enhancing the standing of their profession. I have also been impressed by their optimism and their constructive approach towards the development of chiropractic in the United Kingdom. I wish the profession well and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who has led for the Opposition during the Bill's previous stages. Unfortunately, she had a constituency commitment that she could not avoid. The Opposition made clear their full support for the measure during the previous stages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South spoke for a mere six minutes on Second Reading and for less than one minute in Committee. I shall follow her example in terms of brevity, not least because of the Opposition's strong desire to see the measure on the statute book and also because I am a sponsor of the Bill that the House is to discuss next which was introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry).
The House and the public will not forgive any hon. Member who attempts to delay this measure as a way of wrecking my hon. Friend's Bill. Hon. Members would do well to look at examples of what has happened to Members of this place who have attempted to wreck the measure. I assure any hon. Members with those intentions that we will do all in our power to ensure that their constituents are well aware of their activities.
On behalf of the Opposition, I am happy to support the Bill and I wish it well.

Lady Olga Maitland: I offer a warm welcome to the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his success. I was proud to serve on the Standing Committee that examined the Bill for one special reason: one of the leading chiropractors in the country, Dr. Brian Hammond, is based in my constituency. I have heard from his many patients and others within the community what an absolute blessing chiropractic treatment has been to them and it therefore follows that that treatment should be offered proper recognition. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve.
In the past few decades, an enormous amount of progress has been made because the medical world now accepts that complementary medicine has a role to play. It has been heartening to note that the national health service, which was hesitant in supporting complementary medicine, is now offering whole-hearted support for chiropractic treatment. In many cases, people who have gone to see their doctor and sought treatment from conventional medicines in hospital have been advised to seek the help of a chiropractor and found immediate relief.
The practice in Sutton is of such stature that it has treated 16,000 people in about 15 years, which works out at an average of around 500 people a week. The numbers treated demonstrates the important role that chiropractic treatment has in medicine today, especially when we bear in mind the misery that back pain can cause. Although chiropractors treat all forms of pain, their treatment is particularly beneficial for those suffering from back pain. The chiropractor registrar noted earlier this year that 310,000 people in Britain alone are off work each day with back pain. It is estimated that back pain costs the country £3 billion in lost production every year. Those figures speak for themselves and reveal how important it is that chiropractors should be properly recognised and have their own general council.
With the compilation of a formal register, chiropractors will be able to ensure that rogue practitioners will be prevented from registering. That will stop patients or potential patients being put at serious risk. Dr. Brian Hammond has told me of several people who came along to him in great pain having first been treated by a rogue practitioner. The Bill will regulate an important part of what I call the medical profession and I therefore give it a warm welcome.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury on his tremendous determination to push the Bill through. When his chance came up in the ballot, he selected a Bill that went right to the back pain of Britain, the heart of Britain. His Bill will offer tremendous relief to many people who have always felt that their source of medical help has been on the fringes of medicine. It will now be within the heart of it.

Mr. John Sykes: I support the Bill, which my hon. Friend for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), has promoted because, in 1978, I obtained my class 1 heavy goods vehicle licence—I must be one of the only hon. Members to have done so—and I know full well what driving long hours can do to one's back. I also support the

Bill because, last year, I had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Osteopaths Bill, which has served that profession well.
Whether by hard work, subtle diplomacy, opportune timing or a combination of all those factors, a variety of interested organisations have come together in recent months to debate the statutory regulation of the chiropractic profession in a rare atmosphere of accord. On those grounds alone, there is much to commend.
A sea change in the opinion of the British Medical Association towards alternative and complementary medicine has come about. For some time, surveys have reported positive findings concerning the efficacy of complementary medicine. The nation's health care system is under a period of intense scrutiny and either the nation is turning progressively spineless or, as a result of what appears to be a series of amazing coincidences, complementary medicine is enjoying greater public confidence than at any other time. Chiropractic treatment is experiencing not so much a fad as a boom.
Of the 310,000 people who are off work each day because of back pain, 75,000 receive weekly chiropractic treatment. In a previous debate on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that it cost £20 per hour for treatment at the National Back Pain Association in her constituency. If one takes that rate as a hypothetical mean rate, the chiropractic profession starts to turn from a strand of complementary medicine into a multi-million pound industry. That alone is not, however, a sufficient reason for the statutory regulation of chiropractic.
The 75,000 people who receive weekly chiropractic treatment are administered to by 900 practitioners, who are qualified in a variety of ways and registered by a number of voluntary bodies. The size of the chiropractic profession and the volume of its work have outgrown the voluntary status that was a perfectly satisfactory means of self-regulation for many years. The arrangements are in need of review at least, if not statutory regulation as the Bill proposes.
The chiropractic registration steering group has calculated that 310,000 people are off work each day through back pain and that that costs the country £3 billion annually in lost production. That is undesirable and the problem could be greatly relieved by the statutory regulation contained in the Bill.
With the debate on the future of the NHS and social security provision continuing to roll on, the remaining stages of the Bill should take account of the important fact that it is no longer taken for granted that traditional forms of treatment are more effective than complementary medicine, although they are often considerably more expensive.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sykes: No, I must make progress.
The successful passage of the Bill so far perhaps results from the fact that its origins lie in an initiative started within the chiropractic profession.

Mr. Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for Government Whips to supply briefing material to Government Back Benchers, who have not shown the slightest interest in the Bill's previous stages? They have done so in an attempt to block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, promoted by my hon.
Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). I witnessed the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) being supplied with briefing material on Tuesday by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Member for Scarborough has not shown a scrap of interest in the Bill before now and his speech is a disgraceful attempt to delay business and block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Sykes: That was an unworthy point of order, but it was entirely in keeping with the stature of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) in the House. He obviously was not listening to the start of my speech, when I said quite clearly that I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Osteopaths Bill last year. Every day 310,000 suffer from back pain; there are as many people who suffer from back pain as there are disabled and they should have their say.
The successful passage of the Bill so far perhaps results from the fact that its origins lie with an initiative started within the chiropractic profession. The Bill is not a coercive measure or an unpopular one. It has support through the chiropractic profession and enjoys cross-party support in the House.
The prestigious King's Fund management committee, impressed by the co-operation that it saw from all the different parts of the chiropractic profession, decided to set up a working party to investigate the possibility of statutory regulation. It found in favour. The report, provided under the auspices of its chairman, Sir Thomas Bingham, has subsequently provided much of the substance and thought behind my hon. Friend's Bill.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Sykes: I have already said that I will not give way.

Mr. Austin-Walker: What is the hon. Gentleman afraid of?

Mr. Sykes: The hon. Member wants to proceed to discuss the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but I want to conclude my remarks on the Chiropractors Bill.
It is perhaps unnecessary to stress the intellectual and philosophical pedigree behind the Bill, because, as has often been said during its passage, the popularity and confidence that the profession enjoy among the public are now indisputable. The Bill is not merely concerned with legislating for a flash-in-the-pan fad. A huge change has occurred in the attitude of the medical disciplines towards alternative and complementary medicine. As the number of people receiving treatment continues to rise, so does the number of referrals from orthodox doctors, a theme to which I shall return in a moment.
At times like this, it is tempting to resort to the old adage,
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
However, statutory registration will prolong the smooth running of chiropractic treatment. Indicative of that truth are the lengths to which the various chiropractic bodies went to gain agreement about the setting of common standards for education and training of chiropractors. The chiropractic registration steering group dismissed all professional jealousy and competitiveness to gain

agreement that, within five years of legislation coming into force, all schools of chiropractic in the United Kingdom would have minimum standards in accordance with those set down by the European Council on Chiropractic Education.
The other measures that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury has chosen for inclusion in his Bill are indicative of the same need for statutory regulation. Through the creation of a General Chiropractic Council, as recommended in the King's Fund report, and a group of four subsidiary committees, a sophisticated self-governing watchdog system can be put in place. That is of major concern to the profession, whose method of treatment could be highly dangerous in the hands of the unqualified.
The general council will regulate, develop and promote chiropractic treatment. The subsidiary groups will form layers of defence against potential abuse and provide breadth of expertise, which will ensure that the profession has a solid and legitimate basis from which to meet the increased demands that the future is likely to bring.
The Bill seeks to bring reassurance to patient and practitioner alike. Statutory regulation would offer reassurance to the patient that the registered practitioner was properly qualified. The obligation to retrain will further ensure that reassurance. The Bill will give the practitioner official recognition and respectability, which can only improve the chances of a member of the profession playing a more integral role in the health care system of the nation.
In the light of the recent debate about deregulation, it can also be assured that provisions of the Bill show a laudable tendency for self-government. The financial onus of the general council is placed entirely on the shoulders of the profession through subscription rates, except where the Privy Council is required to intervene, and the work of the general council and its committees is prescribed to be proactive and progressive.
The incorporation of alternative and complementary medicine into mainstream UK health care has been helped by a number of changes of perception in established views. An especially influential article, with vast implications, was a study published in the British Medical Journal in 1990 and conducted by the Medical Research Council. It found that in a comparative study of the treatment received in hospital through traditional medicine with the treatment received from chiropractors, only one of the 11 hospital centres could claim to perform better than chiropractors. There was an insignificant difference between the performance of two sets of the other centres and chiropractors, although the study found that 741 patients studied between the ages of 18 and 65 received "significantly more effective" treatment from chiropractors than from eight of the hospitals.
Chiropractic is, in many such ways, receiving greater attention and recognition for its successful treatment of what is now a widespread problem—back-related ailments. Some of the hon. Members in the House today are still worried about the extent to which complementary medicine will be made available on the national health service, especially those medicines that are to be, or have been, statutorily regulated.
I believe that that is merely a case of counting chickens. Before chiropractic is incorporated completely into established patterns of health care, it must first achieve statutory recognition. It must then be allowed a period of assessment, to discern the true extent of its need.
A more prescient question might be about the way in which a proportion of the 60 million working days are lost each year as a result of back pain could be recovered. Schemes for chiropractic treatment at the workplace, which the Minister outlined during the previous debate, represent only one response to that large problem.
Far from exhibiting
a reversion to primitive beliefs",
as the BMA thought as recently as 1976, complementary medicine could contain many answers to our anxieties about welfare expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam believes that there are savings to be made. On Second Reading, she said that she believed that £13 million could be saved in lost output and £2.5 million in social security payments, against an additional cost of about £4 million from the introduction of chiropractic in the national health service.
Various pithy guidelines were produced during the previous debate to illustrate the readiness of the chiropractic profession to receive statutory regulation. It must now be obvious to all that that is the case. Likewise, I believe that the Bill in its present state is more than ready for statutory recognition and hence I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Like hon. Members who spoke earlier, I welcome the Bill and want it to be brought into force as soon as possible. I recognise the importance of chiropractic to many people who are disabled by severe back and other pain, but there is no dispute in the House about the importance of the Bill and the importance of its coming into law.
No debate is necessary on the Bill and I hope that, after this long debate, the House will recognise that the tactics of the Conservative Members are not to add anything to the Chiropractors Bill. They intend to block the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which would bring benefit to millions of disabled people in the country.

Mr. Spring: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on successfully sponsoring the Bill, and on presenting his case so admirably at every stage.
Although, 20 years on, the BMA remains agnostic about complementary medicine, I have a personal observation to make. About 20 years ago, when I started working, I had an injury which resulted in the most appalling headache. I visited countless doctors and specialists, none of whom could find anything wrong. Therefore, I speak with considerable feeling when I say that a chiropractor solved that problem. I am not alone in that. It was an appalling experience of six months of considerable pain.
Complementary medicine has been brought substantially into the main stream and I welcome the fact that the cure of pain through chiropractic can be achieved without the use of pills, which have become a considerable problem in our country. In the old days, chiropractic and osteopathy were considered to be off-beam and eccentric. They were unloved and held in deep suspicion.
On a final personal note, when I telephoned my doctor to say that I had got rid of that excruciating pain via manipulation of the spine, he was horrified. I do not believe that today a general practitioner would react in that way.
The thrust of the Bill, therefore, is to recognise the achievements of chiropractors by upgrading their reputation and giving them the professional status that they deserve because they have helped so many people such as myself.
Increasingly, medicine takes an holistic view of people. We know that illness can be psychosomatic in many respects, but we know that the spine is the conduit for the nervous system and can have an impact on the immune system. Indeed, the huge volume of back pain which is so noteworthy of contemporary Britain is increasingly treated by chiropractors without recourse to tranquillisers.
Last night, I initiated an Adjournment debate about substance abuse. One aspect of substance abuse that is an increasing problem in this country is the overuse of tranquillisers and painkillers. That is where alternative medicine has an important part to play.
In my constituency a few months ago, I visited the Bury St. Edmunds chiropractic practice and met an elderly gentleman, who had for years been in agony and was now being successfully treated. He wanted me to see the treatment that he had been undertaking. Increasingly, GPs and chiropractors work hand in glove. It is no coincidence that, in my constituency, the Bury chiropractic practice is now cheek by jowl with a new GP's surgery. I believe that that is the way for the future.
In the past 20 years, there has been a sea change. People live longer. Better health is expected. However, as a result of rising living standards and people's desire for good health, the risk of the charlatan remains. One only has to read newspapers and magazines that discuss health to read the names of countless individuals offering therapies, hypnotism and so on. There is an explosion in such treatments, which are beneficial in many respects as part of complementary medicine, but also have their dangers. That is why the Bill is so important in creating parameters for the professionalism of chiropractors.
The Medical Research Council, during a two-year trial, gave complete credence to the use of chiropractic in returning patients to good health. The medical profession, in contrast with 15 to 20 years ago, is no longer dismissive. Increasingly, younger doctors take an admirable holistic approach. Clinics offering complementary medicine are increasing and are working closely with the existing medical profession.
The chief executive of the King's fund said that complementary medicine should be regulated and recognised by statute, provided that it met three important criteria. First, it should rest on a solid professional basis with knowledge and skills that could be examined. All hon. Members would agree with that. Secondly, it should be able to cure pain by any objective assessment. We know that chiropractors can achieve that. Thirdly, there should be a public demand for it. The public require a proper understanding and feeling of security, and the difference between good and bad practice should be made clear. Publicly accountable self-regulation is, therefore, part and parcel of that.
The Bill appears properly to fulfil those themes. It gives assurance to the public and greater self confidence to the profession; it weeds out the charlatans; and the general council will be self financing. We are not discussing some


overweening new statutory body that is introducing a host of unwelcome legislation, full of bureaucratic intent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) said, 75,000 people a week visit chiropractors. However, there are only 900 chiropractors in Britain and, considering the demand and the good that they do, that number is inadequate.
With a proper status and self-regulating framework, GPs and the public will increasingly accept the profession. The increased number of GP fundholders using complementary medicine will undoubtedly attract further people. I welcome the fact that the Bill itself will attract people to become chiropractors, given the shortage that exists.
In 1975, the British Chiropractic Association applied unsuccessfully for inclusion as one of the professions regulated under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. At that time, there was a division about the way forward for the profession, born largely of a contradictory self image. As a result of the Bill, that will no longer be the case. Complementary medicine is in place and the General Chiropractic Council will give it form and structure.
A poll conducted by The Times and MORI showed that 93 per cent. of those consulting a chiropractor were satisfied with their treatment. I doubt whether many professions in Britain enjoy that level of satisfaction and acceptance, despite the fact that, hitherto, anybody could call himself or herself a chiropractor. Despite the high satisfaction, those who were unsatisfied could have recourse under common law alone, which is an important point. The additional assurance of proper registration and regulation of the profession springs directly from the Bill, under which the General Chiropractic Council can decide whether to introduce disciplinary proceedings. I welcome that arms'-length principle.
The Bill neither defines nor describes chiropractic, the practice of which will be regulated by the General Chiropractic Council. I welcome the comprehensive machinery on fitness to practise to ensure high standards and that other patients are not at risk by the illness of a chiropractor. Allegations may lead to the suspension of practitioners immediately, pending an inquiry into the allegation, which is wholly to the good. All that will add to the public's perception of the profession as being of the highest quality.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough said, 310,000 people in the United Kingdom are off work each day with back pain, which costs the nation £3 billion a year in lost production. The incidence of back pain in Britain is increasing at a faster rate than any other disability. In November 1992, a survey conducted by Which? magazine showed that chiropractic was the second most frequently used complementary therapy. It is now 99 years old, with statutory regulation in 17 other countries. This is a Bill whose time has come.

Mr. Knapman: Earlier comments show that all Conservative Members are pleased to see in his place the Minister of State with responsibility for disabled people. In 1979, no such post existed and the budget for disabled people has risen from £1 billion to roughly 10 times as much. So we need no lectures from Opposition Members about looking after disabled people.
Over the past few months, I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee discussing the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill, which prevented me, until now, from commenting as fully as I would wish on important legislation such as this. The fact that that Committee sat for 177 hours taught me how important the Labour party feels it is to scrutinise carefully important legislation. I am, therefore, sure that they will not criticise us for carefully scrutinising this Bill.

Mr. Sykes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is speaking, whereas the annunciator shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is not responsible for the annunciator. He is responsible for more than enough this morning.

Mr. Knapman: I shall try not to add to your burdens, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This is an important Bill. All those who have spoken have had back problems at some stage. I spent the last election campaign flat on my back in Frenchay hospital with muscle spasms in the back, which is extremely painful. My agent was unkind enough to suggest that my majority went up due to that fact. However, I was grateful for the treatment that I received in the hospital and from chiropractors soon afterwards.
I find the Bill somewhat contentious, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will comment on the points that I wish to raise. I shall not take long to raise those points.
It is fair to say that a move to statutory regulation can be seen as a change in the method of regulation, rather than an extension of regulation. That is what we are told, but when we read the Bill carefully, we see that clause 1 provides for the establishment of a General Chiropractic Council and four committees. Indeed, an amendment that was not selected this morning sought to establish five committees. Clause after clause then sets up registers, annual registers, the suspension of registration and so on. How will that all be paid for?
Nineteen people are to sit on the general council, whereas the average size of a council is 10 to 12 people. With a little practice, 19 people could create nearly as much hot air as we do in this place. Is all that to be paid for by 900 people?
That matter has no doubt been considered and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) who has been as splendid in taking this Bill through the House as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) was at taking the Osteopathy Bill through the House last year.
However, all the clauses up to clause 13, and again in clauses 20 to 26, which provide for machinery to investigate allegations of unacceptable professional conduct, have cost implications. What are those cost implications? We are led to believe that discussions between officials and representatives of the profession indicate that statutory regulation would have no net adverse cost effect on business. As Mandy Rice-Davies in the pre-"back to basics" era might have said, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" Some 900 members will have to pay for a vast bureaucracy so I presume that, ultimately, the patient will pay.
I have concerns about the Bill. I welcome the thrust of it and what it seeks to achieve, but I query the number of committees and the size of the council. I wonder whether 900 practitioners can reasonably be expected to pay for it. I suspect that in two or three years' time, the cost of visiting a chiropractor will be considerably more than it is today.
I am sorry that today we could not could not cover new clause 2 which involves animal chiropractors—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The reason that we could not cover new clause 2 was that it would be out of order to do so. It is certainly not in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Knapman: I thought that I said that I was merely sorry that new clause 2 had not been called today, but I shall not continue on that subject.
I think that I am entitled to ask whether the Government intend to allow the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to appoint someone to the committees. If there are animal chiropractors, surely the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should be given the same privileges and rights as the doctors' representatives are given in another clause.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would the hon. Gentleman respond favourably to an appeal from the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), to reduce the length of his speech in order not to endanger the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? If an appeal is made by the Bill's promoter, who spoke more briefly than some of his colleagues, would the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) respond favourably?

Mr. Knapman: I have already said that I have no intention of speaking for any great length of time. Bearing in mind that, for some minutes when I started speaking, the monitor showed the wrong name, I am the last person to be accused of seeking to detain the House unnecessarily. With one possible exception in relation to a specific Bill, I have never tried to delay the House for any great period. I am sorry that my anonymity should have prevented me from continuing along that line. I merely wonder whether veterinary surgeons should have the opportunity of nominating one member.
I am also concerned about why the Bill involves the Privy Council and a negative resolution of the House. Why are the names proposed not put forward by the Secretary of State in the normal way so that we can ask questions in the House about the Bill's effects? I appreciate that sometimes one avenue of approach is used and sometimes another, but I wonder why, on this occasion, the Privy Council is involved, rather than the Secretary of State.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) appreciates that I have no further points to make other than to say that back pains lead to the loss of far more working hours than almost any other ailment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) will wish to make a contribution. I see in the Rochdale and Heywood Express, under the heading, "Liz backs bill" that she gives her full support to the Bill. I am sure that she will wish to make a few comments on Third Reading.

Ms Liz Lynne: I support the Bill, but I also fully support the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. The delaying tactics being used are not worthy of any hon. Member.

Mr. Knapman: It seems that when Liberal Democrat Members support a Bill, they no longer express their support in the House of Commons, but issue press releases to the Rochdale and Heywood Express stating that they support everything.

Ms Lynne: Some of us spoke in Committee.

Mr. Knapman: If the hon. Lady had been in her place earlier, she would have heard me explain that the rest of us also serve on Committees.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider what I have said and respond.

Mr. James Clappison: I do not intend to delay the House, but I have one short point to make. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on the Bill. He has chosen to follow the path recommended by many eminent authorities and put in place a system of regulation for chiropractors similar to, but separate from, that for osteopaths. The question I pose to him and the Minister is that, since the central purpose of the provision is to protect the public from rogue practitioners and the like, would it not be desirable to have the fullest co-operation between osteopaths and chiropractors? [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) becomes much more excited, may I say that the issue is of some interest to people who suffer from back pain. The issue was raised in the debate on Second Reading, and I have taken less time to make my speech than her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) took to make his point of order earlier this morning, which was not related to back pain or disability. The hon. Lady knows what it involved.

Mr. Sackville: It is with great pleasure that I rise to respond on behalf of the Government and also in my role as the junior health Minister with responsibility for back pain, which seems to be a growing problem. Perhaps the problem is increasing because we live longer and are wearing out our backs or perhaps we abuse our backs through the way we live. I do not know the answer, but it is a large and growing problem to which the Department of Health must give greater attention.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on his choice of Bill and the efforts that he has made in steering it through the House. Today is an important day because the chiropractic profession helps a great many people who suffer from back pain. The Bill will undoubtedly strengthen that profession and make it more accessible to the NHS and to more patients. For those reasons, I intend to respond for a few minutes. It is fitting that I should do so, although I am aware of the need to leave time for other business later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury did extremely well in the ballot—the same cannot be said of all ballots. He therefore has precedence today and I shall respond briefly to him.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend spell out clearly the fact that any patient is entitled to receive chiropractic treatment on the NHS, particularly through a fundholding GP?

Mr. Sackville: Fund holders have absolute freedom to buy the services of chiropractors, just as the family health services authorities have absolute freedom to decide that non-fundholding GPs should have their costs reimbursed —there is access. The Bill gives people—practitioners and public—the confidence to seek to use chiropractic on the NHS. That has not happened to a great extent until now.
Anyone picking up my hon. Friend's admirable Bill would immediately be struck by its size and scope. It probably holds the record for the largest private Member's Bill that the House has ever seen—the records of the House suggest that that is so.
The chiropractic profession will shortly be celebrating its centenary and I can think of no other more suitable event to mark that occasion than the successful achievement of statutory regulation of the profession in the United Kingdom. Within the sphere of health care, statutory regulation often marks the occasion of a profession's coming of age. Through the years, chiropractors have worked diligently, often in the face of opposition, to have their skills accepted and their contribution to health care recognised. Not that long ago —only 30 years ago—chiropractors in some parts of the United States were convicted of practising medicine illegally. The profession is to be commended for holding firmly to its faith and its belief that one day it would win through. That is why today is important.
There is no doubt that chiropractic has an important role in helping increasing numbers of people remain mobile and free from discomfort. Those who have benefited from chiropractic treatment—we have heard from some today and I include myself in that number—are eager to testify to its benefits. It was probably not until June 1990, when the British Medical Journal published the results of a Medical Research Council trial on lower back pain that the medical profession in this country sat up and took notice. The MRC trial was the first large-scale comparative study of orthodox and complementary medical treatment of a particular condition, and it compared chiropractic management with hospital out-patient management of back pain. The report by the King's Fund working party remarked:
The decision to conduct this trial reflected steadily growing public demand for chiropractic treatment, a marked shift in the attitude of the medical profession towards chiropractic, the readiness of chiropractors to subject their treatment techniques to clinical trial and the willingness of chiropractors, hospital consultants, general medical practitioners and state-registered physiotherapists to work closely together.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the King's Fund for the considerable contribution that it has made to the Bill. It is also fitting that I should congratulate the chiropractic profession on its success thus far and on its skill in persuading my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury to take up the Bill.
The formation in 1991 of the chiropractic registration steering group marked a significant step in the development of chiropractic in this country. Its members are drawn from all the voluntary associations that represent chiropractors. It is a very diverse profession; to some extent that answers the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) that it is top heavy. There are different parts of the profession; everyone needs

to be involved. I do not think my hon. Friend will find that the general council will be unwieldy or over-expensive. It will do its job economically.
Together, all these people have been tireless representatives of the profession and a consistent and dependable source of information about chiropractic treatment and the way it is practised in the United Kingdom. The steering group was formed with the single purpose of preparing the way for statutory regulation. It was a great asset to the King's Fund working party, and I know that it has served my hon. Friend and officials from my Department very well.
The steering group has been, however, more than a collection of like-minded people. It represents a change of attitude on the part of members of a profession who have in the past been divided, sometimes bitterly, by their common title of chiropractor. Through the steering group, bridges have been built and a common way forward has been agreed. The success of any statutory scheme will depend on a united profession.
My hon. Friend made some timely and well-observed comments on the future of the profession, and I in turn should like to add some of my own. I have already mentioned changes that have taken place in the profession, as shown by the formation of the steering group. Together, all these developments amount to a life-changing experience. The profession has already started down a new path which promises an exciting future. In the unlikely event that the Bill were to fall, the profession has already come too far ever to be the same again.
The profession ought, therefore, to be setting its sights on how it will shape the future for the benefit of the whole profession. I do not suggest that it should attempt to pre-empt the role of the council; rather, it should build on and develop the spirit of working together that has already taken hold. Increasing each chiropractor's sense of belonging to a single profession should not make practitioners fearful of losing their identity as particular types of chiropractor. After all, geriatricians and obstetricians are trained in and work in very different ways. Both, however, have to register with the General Medical Council, so the analogy is a fair one.
I am aware that times of change can bring uncertainty and that some chiropractic students are anxious about their future. Nothing in the Bill should lend credence to such fears. Should my hon. Friend's Bill be successful, as I hope it will be, there will follow an indeterminate period before the general council can be set up. We discovered from the experience last year with the osteopaths that, even with the best will, it takes a great deal of time for members of the first general council to be identified and appointed.
It needs to be borne in mind, however, that the first council will have an unprecedented role, taking the profession through the transition from voluntary registration to statutory regulation and into the formative years of the new scheme. Although everyone wants the expeditious establishment of the new council, it will be of far greater importance to ensure that those appointed to serve on it are of the correct calibre and possess the breadth of experience necessary to meet their responsibilities.
Running in parallel with the appointment of the general council is the need for the profession to raise the necessary finance to run the statutory scheme. Once the council is established, it could be 18 months to two years before the register opens. In the meantime, the general council will have had to draw up—and have approved by the Privy


Council—its rules, of which there are necessarily many. It will also need to have determined and published the standard of proficiency for safe and competent practice. Its education committee will need to have appointed visitors to visit educational institutions and make recommendations to the general council about courses that provide evidence of having reached that standard of proficiency and which, subject to the approval of the Privy Council, should result in recognised qualifications under the Act. Premises may need to be secured, the registrar and other staff will need to be appointed, equipment and stationery will have to be purchased, and so on.
All that will require time. Until the registration fees start to come in, the general council will need to find money from other sources. In addition to the fees, the council will also need enough reserves to finance its fitness-to-practise machinery.
I welcome the Bill and I believe that it will be very beneficial to the chiropractic profession. The widening and growth of that profession will do a great deal for those who suffer from back pain. I commend the Bill to the House; I hope this is the last time we shall see it here, and that it will have a speedy passage through another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a deeply serious point of order of which I gave notice to the Clerk of the House on Wednesday of this week.
On Tuesday evening, I was informed by a highly authoritative source that a huge number of amendments for the Report stage of the Bill had been drafted by the Government for tabling by Conservative Members. The following morning, no fewer than 80 amendments appeared in the names of five Conservative Members who had taken little, if any, part in debates on the Bill since I first presented it to the House nearly two and a half years ago.
My reaction to the information that I received was to table a parliamentary question for priority written answer today, the earliest date on which that procedure could be used, asking the Lord President how many amendments for consideration at Report stage of the Bill had been drafted by the office of Parliamentary Counsel. The question need not be answered by the Lord President until this afternoon, by which time today's proceedings on the Bill could have concluded, without the House knowing how many and which of the amendments that we shall be debating today were drafted by the Government.
What makes it all the more important and urgent that we should have this information is the fact that the Government said that they would not be tabling any amendments to the Bill on Report. The House ought surely to know whose amendments these really are, and I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree—I know how dedicated you are to protecting private Members' time—that it would be helpful if the Lord President told us this morning how many amendments were drafted by the Government at taxpayers' expense. Not to do so can only increase the—now widespread—suspicion that the Government have decided to wreck the Bill by proxy.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the defender of minorities, and there is no more important minority than disabled people. The points put to you by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) are extremely serious. They serve to underline what is becoming patently clear: that there is an attempt by the Treasury through the back door to undermine a Bill which publicly it is pretending to allow through. If this is the last nauseating kick of a discredited and moribund Government, it is appalling that it is disabled people who are being kicked.

Mr. Alan Howarth: >: Further to that.point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise the House whether it is in accordance with the rules and the proper spirit of procedure in this place to deluge the Order Paper with new clauses and amendments, with a clear view to talking out and scuppering the Bill? There are 6 million disabled people in this country and they, their families and friends will greatly resent any tactics of obstruction. It is for hon. Members who have tabled amendments to consider how they will face their constituents and themselves if they talk the Bill out. Can you advise the House whether it would be in order for hon. Members to


withdraw their amendments so that the Bill can proceed to further scrutiny in another place and so that any amendments that might be worth adding to the Bill could be tabled again in other place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I will deal with the matters in the order in which they were raised. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the source of amendments. That is not a matter for the Chair.
As to the fact that amendments have been tabled on Report, that is perfectly normal. It is a matter for individual hon. Members who wish to table such amendments. As long as they are in order and Madam Speaker has selected them, it is appropriate that they be debated. It is, of course, within the power of any hon. Member to seek the leave of the House to withdraw any amendment if he or she so chooses.
It would now be in the interests of all parties if we proceeded—

Mr. Roger Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the House passed a motion calling on Her Majesty's Ministers to
provide sufficient time on the floor of the House before 27th May 1994 to allow all remaining stages of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill to be completed".
That motion was carried without a single vote against it. It was not opposed by the Minister, either in his speech or in his actions at the time of voting. I am a new Member, but would not it be in order for the Minister now to make a clear statement to the House about his actions following the decision of the House last Friday, which he did not oppose?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely up to any hon. Member to raise a point of order, but they must be matters for the Chair. I think that we should now proceed to new clause 3—

Mr. Barry Sheerman: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that you are responsible for good order in the House and, in many respects, for the reputation of the House. If the reputation of the House is to fall into disrepute, it really is the responsibility of the Chair to pay attention to that; and I know that you do. The House must be being held in contempt. The Bill has had its Second Reading and has been considered in Committee—during which stage the Government tabled no amendments. If this subterfuge goes ahead today and the Bill is sunk because of the Government encouraging certain kinds of Back Benchers to come in at a late stage and destroy it, it must be bad for the reputation of the House. It could be cleared up if the Minister would say this morning, before we go on our way, that he deplores this late attempt to delay and subvert the Bill. If he made that clear statement we would know where the Government stand and that could save the reputation of the House.

New Clause 3

LIABILITY OF EMPLOYERS AND PRINCIPALS

'.—(1) Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done by his employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done with the employer's express knowledge or approval.

(2) Anything done by a person as agent for another person with the authority (whether express or implied, and whether precedent or subsequent) of that other person shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done by that other person as well as by him.

(3) In proceedings brought under this Act against any person in respect of an act alleged to have been done by an employee of his it shall be a defence for that person to prove that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing that act, or from doing in the course of his employment acts of that description.'.—[Laady Olga Maitland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out
'or a contract for services'.

No. 5, in clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out 'under those Acts.'

No. 26, in clause 4, page 4, line 5, leave out 'for an' and insert
'in relation to any employment, for the'.

No. 29, in clause 4, page 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 25.

No. 30, in clause 4, page 4, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.

No. 32, in clause 4, page 4, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.

No. 33, in clause 4, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 50.

No. 35, in clause 4, page 5, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert—
'() The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe steps which, if taken, would constitute reasonable accommodation for the purposes of this section, and any such regulations may make different provision in relation to different cases or classes of case.'.

No. 34, in clause 4, page 5, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.

No. 37, in clause 5, page 5, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 6.

No. 55, in clause 11, page 8, line 15, at end insert—
'() In section 133(1) of the Employment Protection
(Consolidation) Act 1978 (complaints to which conciliation procedure applies), there shall be added at the end the following paragraph—
(g) arising out of an act of discrimination, or alleged act of discrimination, in contravention of Part III of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Act 1994".
and section 140(1)(b) of that Act (restrictions on contracting out of jurisdiction of industrial tribunal) shall have effect as if, after the words "under this Act" there were inserted the words "or the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Act 1994.".'.

No. 57, in clause 11, page 8, line 38, at end insert—
'(4) Any provision in an agreement which is not a compromise agreement shall be void in so far as it purports to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to, or bringing any proceedings under this Act before, an industrial tribunal.
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, a compromise agreement is an agreement—

(a) which is in writing;
(b) which relates to the particular complaint;
(c) in relation to which the complainant concerned has received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer, at a time when a policy of insurance was in force covering the risk of a claim by the complainant in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;
(d) which identifies the adviser;
(e) which states that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied.'.

No. 58, in clause 11, page 8, line 38, at end insert—


'() In section 136 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (appeals to Employment Appeal Tribunal), in subsection (1), there shall be added at the end—
(g) the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Act
1994".'.

No. 77, in schedule, page 13, line 20, leave out 'in the employment field' and insert
'in contravention of Part III of this Act'.

No. 79, in schedule, page 13, line 26, at end insert—
'(3) A failure on the part of any person to observe a non-discrimination notice issued under this paragraph shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings.
(4) In any proceedings before a court or an industrial tribunal the observance of, or failure to observe, any such notice may be taken into account in determining any question arising in the proceedings to which that failure appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant, including, in particular, any liability of any person.'.

Lady Olga Maitland: Before I introduce my new clause and amendments, I should make one thing clear. Everyone in the House has one prime concern—care for the disabled. Nobody can claim higher moral ground on that issue—[Interruption.] The real issue must surely be —[Interruption.] It is disgraceful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the way the Opposition are trying to shout me down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—when I should point out that there are fewer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the Chair rises, I expect hon. Members to sit down. I do not expect to hear "shame" and other words from a sedentary position. Hon. Members have made their views entirely clear; that is their right. But the Chair expects there to be a proper debate on new clause 3.

Lady Olga Maitland: I was trying to say—I think that we should make it entirely clear—that everyone in the House shares a deep and heartfelt concern for the disabled. All of us have a considerable community of disabled people in our constituencies. I certainly have in mine. I have met them. I know them well and am well aware of their concerns. If there is a debate going on right now in the Chamber, it should not be about whether we should try to improve the lot of the disabled, but how and what will be the best means to do so.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Did the hon. Lady draft new clause 3, or was it fed to her by the Government?

Lady Olga Maitland: I make my own plans on my new clauses and amendments. I always seek advice, as I have for every Bill, but I have been deeply concerned with the disabled. Anybody in my constituency will bear witness to the enormous amount of effort and work that I have put in on their behalf.

Ms Liz Lynne: Will the hon. Lady answer the question? Who drafted the amendment? Was it the hon. Lady or was it the Government?

Lady Olga Maitland: I take responsibility for my own amendments.
I must now get on. I do not think that it is very helpful to the disabled community to be met with a barrage of shouting from the Opposition when we should be giving serious and careful consideration to what is in their best interests. I want the disabled to feel independent, free, and able to go about the community with dignity. I want them

to have the very best possible access to all amenities, whether in entertainment, public transport or work. Surely we all agree that we have a common concern about that area. I feel keenly that, when we are trying to help what has been a disadvantaged community, we must ensure that we get it right. I am concerned that, so far, the Bill not only needs clarification, but, in my view, redrafting. It would be a great mistake to us all if we found that, in our efforts to help the disabled, we entered into an era of endless litigation in which the only people who could possibly benefit would be lawyers.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The hon. Lady claims to be vice-chair of the Conservative disability campaign. Will she confirm that it opposes the Bill? Or is it a decision that she has made on her own?

Lady Olga Maitland: My decisions regarding the Bill are entirely my own. I operate without having to be dictated to by anybody.
I think that it is very important that we should look at the detail of the Bill rather than face recriminations and tears later on. We should look at the experience of people in other countries and at how they have made progress in that area, or not. We need look no further than America. It tried, with tremendous enthusiasm, to introduce the Americans with Disabilities Act. Since that Act came into being in 1990, it has turned out to pit the disabled against employers. That is causing many tears, which we in this country would wish to avoid.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. Lady help the House by telling us whether, if necessary, she will press the amendments to a vote?

Lady Olga Maitland: Whether I do or not will depend on what my right hon. Friend the Minister says in reply.
I should like to make some progress. We should not be so arrogant as to think that we can plunge forward with legislation without heeding experiences in other lands. The American experience should enable us to avoid pitfalls. The aim of regulation is to help, not to hinder, and it is certainly not to cause such resentment among the people who help the disabled that all the good work is undone.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Lady aware that virtually every disablement organisation in these islands supports the Bill? Those organisations will point out to her constituents that the hon. Lady is talking the Bill out.

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall not be responsible for talking it out. A far greater crime would be to allow the Bill to continue without proper consideration. That would be folly for the disabled and would not help them.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene while the hon. Lady is replying to an intervention. Hon. Members should remember the rules of the House.

Lady Olga Maitland: Rushing headlong into legislation, trying to meet a deadline just for the sake of it, would not help my disabled constituents. Our responsibility to the 6 million disabled is to get the legislation right.

Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Lady is really concerned and if her words are anything more than patronising, glib


nonsense, why did not she table amendments for Committee which could have been moved by members of the Committee? As she did not do that, do not her actions this morning prove that some Conservative Members are trying to stop the Bill?

Lady Olga Maitland: This is the time to table new clauses and amendments. But more than that, we have to make sure that legislation is sufficiently precise, fair and balanced for all concerned.

Ms Lynne: Did the hon. Lady at any time go to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and put to him her ideas on amendments? Is she aware that there was all-party support in Committee and that not even the Minister objected to the majority of the amendments that were tabled? Is the hon. Lady aware of those facts, or is she just engaging in delaying tactics to prevent the Bill from getting through the House?

Lady Olga Maitland: There are no delaying tactics. I say now and I shall say again that there are many times when one can table new clauses and amendments. Today happens to be the most appropriate time to do that. I repeat, what is the point of rushing the Bill through the House and having regrets and recriminations later? That would not help the disabled one bit. We should take note of the American chamber of commerce, which said that it believed that American civil rights legislation was too adversarial to be beneficial.

Mr. Terry Dicks: My hon. Friend should appreciate the criticisms about delaying tactics. We all know what is going on. His master's voice has spoken from the Whips Office on our side and that is what it is all about. I want my hon. Friend to know that some Conservative Members deplore the delaying tactics and the idea that we should deny disabled people their rights. We can pass legislation for anything quickly, and this is an opportunity for the Government and the House to get the matter right for disabled people. I say to my hon. Friend as a friend, "For God's sake realise that everybody in your constituency is watching and everybody knows." It is this time, today, that the legislation has to go through.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I say to him, as I say to the Opposition, that it would be a far greater mistake for me to hurtle down a road that would create perils which it would be impossible to unscramble.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend takes a great responsibility upon herself in obstructing the progress of the Bill. I very much hope that she has studied the issues with care. In the light of what she said about the American experience, may I ask whether she has studied the best research that is available? For example, "Lessons from America" by Victoria Scott is the most authoritative and up-to-date research that we have. It tells us that the National Federation of Small Business Owners in America is of the considered view that the Americans with Disabilities Act, on which the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has closely modelled his Bill, has led to improved business opportunities.

Lady Olga Maitland: But it has also led to increased burdens on employers, companies and businesses in America, and that can destroy opportunities for the disabled and the means of helping them.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Has my hon. Friend read "Lessons from America" to which I have just referred?

Lady Olga Maitland: It is time that I moved on. [Interruption.] The House says, "For goodness sake keep moving."

Mr. Dicks: My hon. Friend will need to move rather fast to deal with all the amendments.

Lady Olga Maitland: There is a limit. I could read out reams of American resource material, but surely we should be taking account of the considerations of people in this country who help the disabled. In that context, it is important to consider what employers and businesses are thinking.
11.15 am
All the letters from employers which have been received so far have undoubtedly been sympathetic to the idea of helping the disabled. However, they keenly feel that they have not been fully consulted and that is the crunch issue in all our concerns. The length of consultation is vital because without good will we shall never get the right kind of legislation and the co-operation that is necessary to help the disabled.

Mr. Berry: Which organisations of disabled people did the hon. Lady consult before tabling her amendments?

Lady Olga Maitland: I have been in constant touch with disabled groups in my constituency. Only last night I was in touch with them. It would be invidious to suggest—

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady name just one organisation for disabled people in her constituency or elsewhere which she consulted before she tabled the amendments and tell us its response?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The new clause and the associated amendments are about the liability of employers and principals. We should return to that issue rather than deal with the broad issues that are now being raised.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: Only if it is applicable to the new clause.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady advise the House which organisations of disabled people she consulted on the clause before she tabled it and tell us their response?

Lady Olga Maitland: Perhaps we should refer the hon. Gentleman to your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may be allowed to proceed with my new clause. I have already explained that I am in close touch with my disability groups: there is no need to go further.
The clause is about the liability of employers and principals, and we should examine the responses of employers. Since the Bill was published, concerns have been expressed by businesses large and small. The employers' groups expressing their anxieties include the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Employers Forum on Disability, the Association of British Insurers, the British Retail Consortium and the British


Bankers Association. That is a significant list, and we should think carefully about and listen to what those organisations have to say.

Ms Lynne: I am delighted that the hon. Lady gave such a long list of employers' organisations. Will she give a list of the organisations for the disabled in her constituency which she consulted on the new clause?

Lady Olga Maitland: The Opposition are trying to make us go round and round in circles, rather than allow me to proceed with my new clause. After all, Opposition Members are anxious to make progress, yet they seem determined that I should not do so.

Mr. David Congdon: One reason why I was pleased to serve on the Committee was that I hoped that it would have the opportunity to explore various issues—and it did. It is of significance that the Government had ample time to table amendments. As a member of the Committee who wanted to make sure that the Bill was fair and balanced, I would have been ready to listen to the arguments for such amendments. As a member of the Committee that considered the Bill carefully, I feel that the arguments being made this morning come somewhat late in the day. Even if the Bill is not 100 per cent. perfect, it would be better to have a Bill that is 99 per cent. perfect rather than risk losing valuable legislation for the disabled.

Lady Olga Maitland: Once I have explained employers' concerns—and my new clause is employerrelated—the House may understand that it would not be wise to hurtle down a route just for the sake of getting something on the statute book today which we would regret later.
We must take into account employers' concerns because without their co-operation the legislation could never succeed. We must take into account the valid point made by employers that the Bill is vague about their precise obligations. They also feel that the Bill would be expensive for businesses—and particularly for small firms —to comply with, as it would require costly modifications to buildings and would cost jobs. I emphasise that the Bill was drawn up without employers being consulted.
I will provide a quick synopsis of comments made by employer organisations, which will make my new clause more understandable.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: The hon. Lady said that she speaks her own mind and holds her own counsel. Will she say whether she is speaking from a printed Government brief?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am not speaking from a printed Government brief, but reporting the representations made by different business organisations.
The Forum of Private Business stated:
Even the most well-intentioned and innocuous legislation can impose burdens on business, and the burden always falls hardest on the smallest firms who are the proven job creators.
The Institute of Directors commented:
While we share the aim of ending discrimination against disabled people, we do not think that the measures proposed by this Bill offer the right solution to this problem.
It was referring to proposals to achieve unrestricted access by the disabled to business premises, which could close

small firms across the country. If the Bill were taken to its logical conclusion, it would almost be like placing a tax on small businesses, and clearly that is not what the House has in mind.
The Federation of Small Businesses stated:
The FSB would be concerned about any new mandatory framework for action concerning legislative accessibility to shops or business premises in the high street which might involve substantial building expenditure.

Mr. Sheerman: On Second Reading, the hon. Lady intervened on the Minister, but did not make a speech. In trying to establish good communications with business, as members of my Front Bench try to do—and I have been in contact with many of the organisations to which the hon. Lady refers—one shorthand procedure is to read and then to send to those organisations the Committee proceedings. The points that the hon. Lady is addressing were well covered in Committee, especially in regard to small firms. She has done a disservice to the Bill and to the House by not reading the Committee proceedings and understanding that those points were met.

Lady Olga Maitland: I acknowledge that there was some contact with small business organisations, but they all feel keenly—bearing in mind the Bill's wide breadth and the scale of its impositions on businesses—that there must be broader and deeper consultation. It is not enough to have one chat, one phone call, one meeting and an exchange of documents. That is not real consultation.
The Association of British Insurers commented:
The Bill as currently drafted would create serious difficulties for the insurance industry and our policy holders. It would effectively prevent insurers from differentiating between risks, which is a fundamental feature of insurance and applicable to all policy holders.

Mr. Berry: It may help the hon. Lady to know that we met the ABI and it now accepts that the statement that its members could no longer differentiate between risks was not correct. Will the hon. Lady withdraw her comment?

Lady Olga Maitland: If the hon. Gentleman is right and the association holds to that view today, I will withdraw my remark—but I will be in touch with the ABI to learn its current position.
The British Retail Consortium states:
There is concern that the Bill would impose extra burdens on employers. The cost of converting older and smaller premises to accommodate the disabled may be prohibitive and cease to make the business viable.
We must take those concerns seriously. It would be invidious to ride roughshod over the very people whose co-operation is badly needed. That would not make for good legislation. A small firm operating from a grade 2 or 3 listed building may be required to make extensive changes to its premises. It might not be able to afford that —it could financially cripple the company. I know that the Bill says that there will be a long lead-in time, but we never know.

Mr. Berry: The Bill does not say that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I urge the hon. Lady to return to the substance of new clause 3. She is now speaking in a very broad context. She must address her remarks tightly to new clause 3.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thought that it was appropriate to explain why I am introducing new clause 3. Unless I do so, the House will not understand my proposals.
Employers' concerns are the key to the whole Bill. I will give just one more example, to qualify my arguments. Kwik Save Group plc bitterly complained about lack of consultation. It stated:
Nothing like sufficient research or consultation has been undertaken"—

Mr. Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My reading of new clause 3 is that it relates to whether an employer is responsible and liable for the acts of an employee. I cannot see the relevance of the hon. Lady's remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my earlier ruling. I made the same point a minute ago.

Lady Olga Maitland: I maintain that it is essential for proper understanding for me to quote Kwik Save's view:
Nothing like sufficient research or consultation has been undertaken into the consequences of the proposals. For instance, there is no evidence that its correlation with employment or health and safety legislation has been considered. We need to allow the necessary time for proper research and consultation.
On that score, I must go further into—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is now taxing the Chair. New clause 3 is not about health and safety, so her last quotation was totally irrelevant. I firmly request the hon. Lady to address the new clause.

Lady Olga Maitland: I stand corrected, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
New clause 3 relates to the liability of employers and principals. It would make employers responsible for discrimination practised by their employees or agents, unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it. The new clause would correct an oversight in the Brill as drafted. The Bill places duties and responsibilities on a variety of people, many of whom employ a work force or act through agents.
It would clearly be nonsense to outlaw discrimination while allowing people to dodge their new responsibilities by claiming that it was the employee or agent who had practised discrimination. It would be small comfort to a job candidate who was wrongly denied an interview on grounds of his disability to hear that it was an underling or employment agency, and not his prospective employer, who had discriminated against him.

New clause 3 guards against that possibility by treating discrimination by a person's employee or agent as though it had been carried out by the person himself. It also recognises—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: I am sorry, but I have already given way so often—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Disability Action, Sutton, a group in the hon. Lady's constituency, is taking strong exception to what she is doing on the Floor cif the House today by interfering in the rights of disabled people in her constituency. Will she resume her seat and concede to the requests of disabled people in Sutton and Cheam?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Bogus points of order do not help either.

Lady Olga Maitland: New clause 3 also recognises that it would be unfair to penalise an employer if, through no fault of his own and perhaps in direct contravention of his instructions, an employee discriminated unjustifiably against a disabled person. Therefore, the new clause allows an employer to defend himself against proceedings brought under the provision by proving that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent his employee from acting in a discriminatory manner. New clause 3 is modelled on a provision similar to that in section 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Amendment No. 4 would remove a confusing and unnecessary phrase from the Bill's definition of "employer". The amendment seeks to clarify the Bill at the expense of extraneous detail. The fact that a contract for services has been established between two parties, one of whom is an employer, speaks for itself.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why don't you sit down?

Lady Olga Maitland: Within the same contract it is therefore necessary—

Mr. Michael Stern: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman's organisation is also objecting to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should cease his sedentary remarks. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members have an absolute right to be heard provided that they are referring specifically to new clause 3.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An attempt is being made in the House by Conservative Members to destroy this legislation. Nearly all Conservative Members present today have organisations in their constituencies have contacted Labour Members—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The Chair is here to ensure that there is full and proper debate on the issues before the House. We are now considering new clause 3 and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) was making an intervention.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was about to make the point that the thrust of amendment No. 4 is borne out by experience in other fields and in particular where the Inland Revenue has great difficulty in establishing whether—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, there has been a campaign of barracking from the Opposition Benches today. May I appeal to you for protection to enable hon. Members to be heard?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the hon. Member for Workington, who is commenting from a sedentary position, that I should be grateful if he would desist—or go and have a cup of coffee.

Mr. Stern: The thrust of amendment No. 4 is borne out by the experience of the Inland Revenue, which has great difficulty establishing whether a person is employed or self-employed and the definition of contract for services is frequently used in such cases. Unless my right hon. Friend


the Minister or the Bill's promoter can rebut the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), amendment No. 4 would be a worthy addition to the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) for making a very worthy intervention. It was a lot more constructive than many of the comments that have been made from across the Floor of the Chamber.
The definition of employer should not extend to a person who may or may not engage the services of another under a contract for services. That term has no useful meaning within that context and its removal will clarify the Bill and go some way towards the aim of promoting conciseness wherever possible.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the final three words from the Bill's definition of employer.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Before the hon. Lady considers amendment No. 5, may I ask whether new clause 3 has the support of disabled persons in her constituency? That point was made a few moments ago. Even if it has, would they approve of anything that would delay the rapid passage of a Bill that is wanted throughout the country and particularly by disabled people?

Lady Olga Maitland: I can confirm that disabled people want the very best possible Bill, the best legislation and the best drafting. They do not want a Bill that is hastily drawn up, which contains flaws and which they feel would not help them in the way intended.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady name any organisation of disabled people which is other than fully supportive of the Bill as currently drafted?

Lady Olga Maitland: All organisations have their own points of view. May I also say that disabled people have their points of view.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: We are now straying from the main point, of the amendment. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will stick to the main point, as I am sure that that is what you have in mind.
Amendment No. 5 would remove the final three words of the Bill's definition of employer. The words add nothing to the meaning of the definition. Indeed, they cause confusion by seeming to refer to a mysterious set of Acts which are not mentioned earlier in the Bill. The removal of those words would clarify the Bill.

Mr. Wigley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lady Olga Maitland: Amendment No. 5 is a simple amendment which is intended to clarify the definition of employer in the Bill. The words "under those Acts"—

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) inadvertently or otherwise misled the House a few moments ago when she said that Kwik Save had expressed an opinion on the Bill. I have just spoken to the chief executive of Kwik Save, which is based in north Wales. He told me that he has received no approach and he stated categorically that he would have known of an

approach had there been one. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to withdraw that part, and many other parts, of her comments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) may wish to respond.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, indeed. Is not it true that to deliberately mislead the House of Commons is a contempt? If it is a contempt and the hon. Lady has deliberately misled the House of Commons, surely the matter should be referred immediately to Madam Speaker? Does not "Erskine May" say that that should happen at the first possible occasion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that the hon. Lady has deliberately misled the House.

Lady Olga Maitland: I can certainly produce the evidence from Kwik Save, but time prevents me from going through all my papers right now. However, if the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would like to catch up with me later after the debate, I will show him the original correspondence. I can go no further than that.
Amendment No. 5 is simple: it aims to clarify the definition of "employer" in the Bill. The words "under those Acts" are tagged on at the end of the definition. The words are confusing because no Acts are mentioned in the Bill to which they could refer. Indeed, the definition reads sensibly without those words. I propose the removal of the offending words. I commend the new clause and the amendments to the House.

Mrs. Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has again misled the House. She gave the impression earlier that she had consulted—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) wishes to make a speech on any element of the new clause, she is perfectly entitled to do so. Points of order are directed to the Chair and for a ruling from the Chair. I have given a ruling on the issue.

Mrs. Clwyd: This is a different point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. I have just this moment—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In future, the hon. Lady should start by explaining that point and should not arrive at it after I have reprimanded her.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am listening carefully to your words of reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I apologise to you. I came into the Chamber just before the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam sat down. She claimed that she had spoken to disability organisations in her constituency, although she failed to mention one. It is important that the House should know that I have just spoken to the Sutton and Cheam branch of Mencap. It fully supports the Bill and it is important that the House should know that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has been a Member of the House for a good number of years. She knows full well that that point has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair.

Mr. Wigley: It Is a good point though.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is not a good point. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has been in the House for as long as I have. He knows, too, that it is not a good point.

Mr. Berry: I urge the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to withdraw the new clause, and I urge other hon. Members who have tabled amendments not to press them—for a very simple reason: all the amendments can be considered in another place, but only if we conclude the Report stage and Third Reading this morning. It is abundantly clear that efforts have been made by some hon. Members to prevent us from completing those stages this morning.
I say immediately that I do not throw that accusation at all Conservative Members. There are Conservative Members who are as angry as we are—[HON. MEMBERS: "And honourable."]—and who are honourable. Other Conservative Members are not behaving honourably at all. The amendments were not tabled to ensure careful and detailed consideration of the Bill. They were tabled specifically to wreck the Bill.
All the amendments could have been tabled in Committee, but I did not receive a single approach from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) or from any other hon. Member who has tabled amendments for consideration today. However, we did receive representations from organisations such as the Association of British Insurers. We tabled amendments suggested by them and discussed them in Committee.
The point is perfectly simple. All 80 amendments could have been discussed in Committee if they had been tabled in Committee. I repeatedly begged the Minister to table amendments on behalf of the Government to address any concerns that he might have. As he failed to do so, I and my colleagues in the Committee tabled amendments through which we attempted to address the Government's concerns. As I said last Friday, I believe that those amendments went a long way to taking on board those concerns. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and her colleagues have been put up to this by the Government.

Lady Olga Maitland: indicated dissent.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Lady shakes her head. I am afraid, therefore, that I shall have to produce evidence to confirm that point. The hon. Lady and I were invited on Wednesday evening to record a "Westminster Daily" programme in which we were to debate the Bill. The first thing that the hon. Lady said to me as we prepared to go into the studio was:
Where are we with the Bill?
I explained to her that the Bill had received an unopposed Second Reading, with 231 hon. Members voting in favour and no hon. Member voting against. I explained to the hon. Lady that the Bill had completed its Committee stage, at which point she said:
I must read the proceedings of the Committee.
She made that statement after she had tabled amendments for debate this morning.
I know that we have to choose our language carefully in the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to stay in order, but I must say that I think that it is less than honest for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam to pretend that amendments have been tabled after careful consideration when, out of her own mouth, it is confirmed that she has been put up to it by the Government.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has been making the most gross slurs against my good name. I have been very concerned for a long time about the disabled in my constituency and elsewhere. For the purpose of tabling new clauses and amendments, it is irrelevant whether I had read the report of the Committee stage at that moment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Berry: Not only have I no intention of withdrawing those remarks, but I shall make a further one, which will be borne out by the video of the programme in question. On three occasions, the hon. Lady was asked whether she had been put up to this by the Government and on three occasions she refused to answer the question.

Lady Olga Maitland: I object to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have always and consistently said that the amendments are mine. I have had a long-standing interest in the disabled in my constituency and I stand by that.

Mr. Berry: The video is there. I am aware that the hon. Lady has threatened legal action against Disability Times; perhaps she will threaten legal action against me as well. All I can say is that the hon. Lady has behaved dishonourably and dishonestly in this matter.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) has threatened the disability press—in particular, Disability Times. That would be an odious thing if it happened. Can my hon. Friend give a source for what he has said?

Mr. Berry: The information is on tape.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are absolutely scandalous. He is still trying to imply that I am threatening legal action. How did he come by that information from my private conversation with Disability Times? Is he not aware that I confirmed to Disability Times, yet again, that the new clause and amendments were mine and mine only?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before this goes any further, may I be clear that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) did not say that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) had acted dishonourably in the House? Is that right? If he had done, I should have to ask him to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Berry: I sought the strongest remark that I could make without causing offence to the Chair. If you could advise me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the strongest language that I could use, I should be grateful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's good will in making that suggestion. However, if he did say, as I understood it, that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam had acted dishonourably in the House, I wish him to make it clear that he did not make that statement.

Mr. Berry: I did not make that statement.
This is a serious matter. Disabled people have been campaigning for a civil rights Bill not just for a few weeks or a few months, but for many a long year. They have been campaigning ever since the first Minister for the Disabled, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), set up a committee to investigate the possibility of such legislation being introduced. In 1982–12 years ago—that committee reported. The issue has been on the table since then, so when people make statements about their good intentions they should be certain that they can substantiate them. There is no doubt that a few Conservative Members are seeking to talk out the Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, for example, said on Radio Bristol a fortnight ago that of course the Bill would be talked out. That was before one single amendment had been tabled. He subsequently tabled 50 amendments.

Mr. Stern: I am happy to amplify what the hon. Gentleman said. He may recollect a conversation that he and I had last February, in which I pointed out to him that the inevitable fate of the Bill was that it would be talked out because it was bad legislation.

Mr. Berry: Not one hon. Member voted against the basic principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Yet in other places they said that they were against the Bill and would do all that they could to stop it. As the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West rose to his feet, I will read out a letter that I happen to have in my possession which he wrote to the honorary secretary of Bristol Mencap. Bristol is a city that he and I have in common. It is probably the only thing that we have in common. The hon. Gentleman pointed out in his letter of 17 February 1994:
As you will know, I regard the various drafts of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill as pernicious legislation which would merely serve to provide a cloak for expanding bureaucracy … something to be opposed at all costs.
Yet he did not oppose it.
Three or four weeks later, we had the Second Reading debate and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West and, indeed, the Government could have voted against the Bill. They did not do so. The Prime Minister looked forward to detailed discussion in Committee. But not one amendment was tabled by the Minister or suggested by the hon. Members for Bristol, North-West or for Sutton and Cheam or anyone else who might seek to talk out the Bill this morning. That is why most of us in the Chamber, on both sides of the House are, to put it mildly, a little angry at the behaviour of a small minority.

Mr. Dicks: A lot angry.

Mr. Berry: Yes, a lot angry. I am grateful for that intervention, albeit from a sedentary position.
The consultation on the Bill has been extensive. The all-party disablement group, so ably co-chaired by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and Lord Ashley, has consulted the Minister, the Prime Minister and organisation after organisation for 12 months and more. I dare say that I have spent more time consulting the organisations that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam listed this morning than she has.
It is appalling that when one asks the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam the simple question of which organisations of disabled people she has consulted, she

cannot name one. She asserts that she has consulted, but she cannot name them. If that is not disingenuous—I hope that that word is in order—I do not know what is.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the House considers legislation which affects a wide body of people—not only the people that it might aim to help—there is a duty to consult widely all relevant organisations? What consultation has the promoter of the Bill had with the chartered airlines?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are on new clause 3.

Mr. Berry: I should like to answer that question. I received a letter from Britannia Airways and I have spoken to the company on the telephone. I promised that we would meet after the completion of business today, before the Bill —I hope—goes to the other place. I would have met that company this week if I had not been meeting other organisations to discuss the Bill.
Returning to new clause 3 and all the other amendments, let me say in conclusion that the Bill received an overwhelming Second Reading, with 231 hon. Members voting in favour of the Bill and not one voting against. The Government did not vote against. The Minister did not vote against. Indeed, there was not one speech against it.

Mr. Stern: If the hon. Gentleman checks Hansard he will find that I made my doubts clear in the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Berry: I confirm that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West expressed grave reservations about the Bill, although not quite so stridently as in his letter to the secretary of Bristol Mencap that I quoted a few moments ago. Indeed, the contrast is marked. The hon. Gentleman did not have the courage to vote against a Bill which he now says is totally unacceptable. That is the point.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Obviously, the reason why the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) did not vote against the Bill was that he knew what happened to Bob Hayward, his colleague in Bristol who lost his seat at the last general election for in effect destroying such a Bill when it came to the House on a previous occasion. Is that not the real reason why the hon. Gentleman did not have the courage to walk into the Division Lobby to vote against the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with new clause 3.

Mr. Berry: New clause 3 and other clauses have been tabled not in order to have the debate that we should have had in Committee. We had an extensive debate in Committee and many of the issues were discussed. If other aspects of the Bill should have been examined, that should have been done in Committee. Even now, if the new clauses and amendments are withdrawn, the issues can be discussed in the other place. Was it really pure coincidence that a handful of hon. Members tabled 80 amendments two days ago? Of course it was not. The amendments were drafted by the Government and tabled by tame Back Benchers to wreck the progress of the Bill.
Disabled people are not asking us to speak for them and do things for them, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam suggested: they are asking us to let them have the


basic civil rights that we demand for everyone else. We are not talking about charity or about being nice to disabled people—we are talking about people's rights. Disabled people are demanding the rights enshrined in the Bill.

Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that we do not expect those rights to come the day after the Bill becomes law? That is an important point.

Mr. Berry: Exactly right. The hon. Gentleman has studied the Bill and campaigned for the measures in it over the years. He knows that the Bill has been drafted carefully to ensure that the provisions can be introduced on a reasonable time scale to accommodate the problems of cost and so on.
What really annoys me is that in recent weeks I have heard the Government say one thing in public and seen and heard them do something totally different in private. In public, they have no opposition to the principle of the Bill. The Prime Minister welcomed the Committee stage. It was a case of "Of course, we all want to do something, don't we?" In private, however, it was made abundantly clear that the Government would not let the Bill through and that they intended to wreck it.
As a new Member of Parliament, I am beginning to understand why many people hold this place and its Members in something less than total respect.

Lady Olga Maitland: Nonsense.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is not in the best position the morning after what happened in the local elections yesterday to suggest that there is enormous confidence in her good self and the present Government. It is a serious point. If Members of Parliament and Governments, of whatever political party, behave in such a deceitful manner, persistently misleading people by saying one thing in public and a different thing in private, it is no wonder that we lose respect.
Disabled people want the Bill. They have a right to the Bill. They have campaigned for it for a long time. I beg those who have tabled amendments to withdraw them and allow the Bill to complete its Report stage and receive its Third Reading today. I guarantee that any matters that. hon. Members wish to be considered, even at this late hour, will be considered in the other place. On behalf of the 6.5 million disabled people who want the provisions of the Bill, I will do whatever is necessary. I beg those Members who have tabled amendments to withdraw them.

12 noon

Mr. Stern: Unlike the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who spoke for the past 18 minutes, I shall attempt to deal with the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman intends to stay in order, but, apart from a number of occasions when I reprimanded hon. Members, the rest of the debate has been in order.

Mr. Stern: I naturally accept your partial correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on new clause 2—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This guy wants to be a Treasury Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) obviously did have a coffee—[Interruption.]Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's disability such that he cannot stay quiet below the Gangway?

Mr. Stern: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The new clause deals with a genuine problem in that the definition of the relationship between employer and employee in the Bill is less than precise, as is that of the relationship between acts carried out by one or the other. That matter was not discussed fully in Committee.
I also commend to the House amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam tabled, not least because—

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. Member give way briefly?

Mr. Stern: The Opposition has launched a campaign of deliberate delay today. They are determined to delay these proceedings as much as possible and to throw the blame on those few hon. Members who oppose the Bill. I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will undertake not to raise matters that have been raised in the many interventions this morning and if he intends to say something that is germane to the subject of my speech.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member. His colleague from Bristol, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), in a distinguished speech, appealed to the hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can reach conclusions on Report today. My hon. Friend gave the hon. Member and others a straight pledge that he will see that amendments similar to any on the Order Paper today, or any other amendments that the hon. Gentleman wishes, are considered in another place. We are time constricted—their Lordships are not. Will the hon. Gentleman respond, please, in view of what he has said about brevity, to what his Bristol colleague said?

Mr. Stern: I will certainly respond. I cannot see how an hon. Member in this place can give an undertaking about how the other place will proceed as it has its own rules and orders. I will not permit the amendments that I tabled in an effort to improve an extremely doubtful Bill to be put into the hands of someone who is in favour of all the principles behind the Bill.
I will continue to give my reasons for the various amendments that I have tabled. The first amendment in my name in the group is No. 26. I shall be grateful for any comments from the Minister, but my understanding is that the amendment supplements new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, by writing similar provisions into another defective part of the Bill. I certainly commend the amendment to the promoters of the Bill, If the hon. Member for Kingswood, who has not dealt with these detailed amendments so far, wishes to answer the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have raised, I shall have no objections to his speaking again in this debate.
Amendment No. 29 goes to the core of one of the approaches in the Bill about which I have strong doubts. It is designed to affect the legal definition of discrimination in clause 4. As I said on Second Reading, the Bill attempts such a definition, but it cannot possibly achieve one and it creates further problems, which are apparent. My


amendment will strike out words that are capable only of creating litigation after litigation and problem after problem for the enforcers. Despite having read the discussions in Committee, I can see that those views have not been adequately considered. I fully understand and accept what the hon. Member for Kingswood is trying to achieve with the wording, but in my view it will certainly not achieve that aim.
For example, paragraph 2(c) in the first part of clause 4 that I am trying to delete—at least on a probing basis—contains a selection of words that can only be described as vague. This House has a duty to ensure that any legislation that we pass to another place—I accept that further amendments can be made there—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stern: Not to the hon. Gentleman.
We have a duty to ensure that legislation is sufficiently clear to be intelligible to the lawyers who will have to interpret it. [Interruption.]

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot hear my hon. Friend's speech. You have already reprimanded the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) several times.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) seems to have some difficulty containing himself this morning. I appeal to him to be quiet because hon. Members want to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No they do not. No one wants to listen to the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington would keep quiet.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have reprimanded my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He was telling me that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) had recently hosted a group of deaf people from his area in the House of Commons but did not have the guts to tell them while he was escorting them around this place that he intended to oppose this Bill, which is being proposed on their behalf.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was doing so in such a loud voice that I could not hear what the hon. Member who had the Floor was saying. I should be grateful if the hon Gentleman would whisper to his hon. Friend in future.

Mr. Stern: May I immediately counter that deliberate mis-statement? No, I withdraw that. May I counter the baseless mis-statement by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which is directly contradicted by the truth? When I hosted the group from Access for Deaf Students Initiative from Bristol in this House I discussed my views on the Bill with some of them. Those views were no different from those that I have stated today. I invite the hon. Member for Bolsover to withdraw his statement, which directly contradicts the truth.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover does not need any help. He can speak for himself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington is beginning to try my patience.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) giving way to me?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No one is giving way, as I have the Floor. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a statement, which the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has refuted. The House recognises that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was the person present and also recognises the clarity of his statement.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What we have just heard is typical of the calumny that has been heaped on those of us who, in all honesty, are trying to get the House to produce decent legislation rather than just going along with what we are told that people outside want.
Amendment No. 29 would delete clause 4(2)(d). I suggest to the hon. Member for Kingswood that the wording in that paragraph is so imprecise as to be positively impractical. Once again, we are being asked to pass law that no court could possibly enforce. We must accept that if and when the Bill, in any form, becomes law, it will be enforced at some stage as a result of contested litigation in the courts. I do not think that the House can pass a Bill containing such imprecise wording without at least further clarification about exactly what it is intended to mean. I have read paragraph (d) several times and I cannot see any way it could be applied with clarity to any employment case.
Amendment No. 30 would delete paragraphs (e) and (f) of clause 4, because they would be wholly oppressive on any employer to whom they could possibly be applied by an employee or a potential employee.
Reference has been made to the Americans With Disabilities Act 1990 and it is worth considering how it works in terms of attempting to change employers' habits through legislation. That, too, is the purpose of the Bill and the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) rightly pointed out that a great deal of authoritative work has been done on the working of the ADA and that there are a number of different views about it. I have not read the book that my hon. Friend quoted, but I am sure that strong views are held in favour of the working of that Act. It is only right to put an opposite point of view, which does not come from an American source but a well-respected charity that works with the disabled in this country, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, RADAR. Victoria Scott, a RADAR official, pointed out:
Many of the costs of the ADA provisions are being carried by consumers or customers. For example, the cost of making the Relay (typetalk) system available in every state has cost every telephone user an average 10–30 cents per phone bill … The ADA has cost America money to implement … The costs are dispersed amongst central and Federal Government, private business, transport companies and millions of consumers … The main concerns about the ADA surrounded the cost of compliance and the vagueness of certain legal terms"—
where have we heard that before—
such as 'reasonable accommodation', 'undue hardship' and 'readily achievable'. During the passage of the Act, many expressed concern over the vague terminology.


It is a pity that more hon. Members are not doing the same.
Victoria Scott went on to say:
Even now it is still fashionable to bemoan ADA's moving targets.
On the question of legal problems, she pointed out:
The US Chamber of Commerce has said that the ADA is too adversarial, that it pits disabled people against employers.
I think that my case for the amendment rests.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I know that my hon. Friend has expressed his opposition to the Bill consistently and frankly over the years and he deserves to be respected for that. It is quite wrong to pray in aid the research that he has quoted, because Victoria Scott proceeded to refute those very points. She cited some of the criticisms that had been made of the ADA, but she went on to explain that they are without adequate foundation. She argued that the concepts of reasonable accommodation and undue hardship are sufficiently robust, as they might be interpreted by the courts, to protect the interests of small business. My hon. Friend is entirely right to be concerned about any legislation that added undue or unreasonable costs to business, because that would be counter-productive. The Bill is securely designed to prevent that from happening.

Mr. Stern: I accept my hon. Friend's point. Our discussions on the Bill have always been conducted politely, unlike some of the ill-tempered comments from certain Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend is right that the purpose of Victoria Scott's article is to refute the criticisms that have been made. I accept that, given the complexity of the ADA, criticisms, refutation of those criticisms and refutation of the refutation of those criticisms will be made. That is bound to happen because that Act is relatively new. In this debate on the Bill, however, we have heard from one side of the argument alone. Criticisms continue to be made about the Bill, however, and it was my purpose to ensure that at least they were heard in today's debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did the hon. Gentleman not serve on the Committee and make those criticisms there?

Mr. Stern: For once, I will reply to a seated intervention from the hon. Member. I did not sit on that Committee because I was not allowed to do so. I applied to be a member and I told the hon. Member for Kingswood that he was in danger of setting up a Committee that was slightly less than balanced if he did not accept as a member of it someone who had strong doubts about the Bill. The hon. Member for Kingswood told me that he was not a free agent in the matter and, for whatever reason, my request to be a member of the Committee was not accepted.

Mr. Berry: The Committee of Selection made the appointments to that Committee. I was consulted, however, and was inundated with requests from people who wanted to serve on the Committee. I was under considerable pressure to nominate the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, which I did, to show good faith—that was the term used when that suggestion was put to me. I could not go any further and, given the actions of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West this morning, I believe that I was correct.

Mr. Stern: We have discussed this amicably on a number of occasions and all I can say to the hon. Member is that if I had served on that Committee I might have been able to put forward a number of the amendments that I have tabled for discussion today.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Member confirm that there was nothing to prevent him from giving me those amendments either before or during the Committee? Will he also confirm that at no time were any of his 50 amendments moved by a member of the Committee for our consideration? It was perfectly possible for that to have been done.

Mr. Stern: I am happy to answer those questions, which continue the discussion that we had on Radio 5 this morning. The answer is simple: in the words of Mr. John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious." If the hon. Member looks at the composition of the Committee, he will accept that, apart from the Minister and his PPS, it was composed of hon. Members who were broadly sympathetic to the Bill's objectives. My amendments are largely critical of the Bill.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stern: No, not until I have finished the point I am making. Given that my amendments are largely critical of the Bill, it would have been foolishness in the extreme to expect that those amendments could have been moved in Committee by someone who was philosophically and practically opposed to their purpose. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should get back to the amendments.

Mr. Stern: Amendment No. 33 is a probing amendment and would strike out clause 4(3). The wording of that subsection would make the remit of the clause far too wide. By treating a relative, however distant, of a person with a disability as a person with a disability for the purpose of the clause means that we would be subject to endless litigation about how remote or how close the connection with the disabled person should be to qualify to be covered by the terms of subsection (3).

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Opposition Members cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is now talking to the two prime destroyers of the Bill, as she was this morning before the debate started, organising the destruction of the Bill, and as she organised a meeting to conspire to destroy the Bill before the House started to discuss it, in order to carry on the Government's—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been far too many sedentary comments all morning. That does not alter the fact that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) has a fairly quiet voice, and I should be grateful if he would raise it a little.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sitting right beside the hon. Members mentioned in the point of order of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I could perfectly well hear the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is obviously down-wind. I could not hear clearly.

Mr. Stern: Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are intended largely as probing amendments, but they are a genuine attempt to improve the wording of the relevant sections of the Bill. I commend them to the hon. Member for Kingswood on that basis.
Amendment No. 37 is another probing amendment. Although I can understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, clause 5, which deals with medical examinations, also seems to me to go far too wide. For example, I suggest that clause 5(1) is otiose. No evidence has been produced of any need for that subsection. When I have spoken to employers about the provision, a number of them—employers who employ medical examinations for some of their staff as a normal practice—regarded the clause as insulting. The hon. Gentleman should have created a climate in which at least a greater need for that subsection was demonstrated.
As for clause 5(3), I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the provision omits the practice in many firms not simply of requiring a medical examination before taking on an employee, but of requiring for employment purposes a continuing regular medical examination in order that that employment can continue, which is applicable in certain types of employment.
My hon. Friend the Member for—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Gainsborough.

Mr. Stern: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) has tabled amendments Nos. 55, 57 and 58 and I look forward with interest to his explanation of them, given the detailed experience in employment and trading law that he gained as a Minister in that sector.
Finally, I shall briefly discuss the last two amendments in my name in this group. Amendment No. 77 seeks to correct wording that is much too vague. To answer the question that the hon. Member for Kingswood asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam earlier, I regard the specific wording that I seek to strike out in clause 77 as so vague and unworkable that if necessary I would press that amendment to a Division on that point alone.
Finally, the purpose of amendment No. 79 is simply to create the possibility of a reasonable claim by an employer that he has not discriminated without his having to go through the entire process of litigation which would otherwise be necessary. Despite a certain amount of barracking, I have gone through the amendments in my name as quickly as possible and I am happy now to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to continue.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall speak to my amendments Nos. 55, 57 and 58. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) was kind enough to refer to my experience in the matter.
I would not want anyone to accuse me of hypocrisy in the matter, so I have to say straightaway that I oppose the Bill. I oppose the Bill as a result of my experience as a lawyer and as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. I believe that it is a regulatory Bill. The burdens that it imposes on small businesses as they emerge from a

recession would be severe. Therefore, I make no secret, because I do not believe in hiding anything from the House of Commons, that I oppose the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many people regard the Bill as a deregulation Bill—a Bill which will deregulate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) said in Committee, the lives of disabled people. They feel that in contemporary society, their lives are heavily regulated. Will the hon. Gentleman think of their viewpoint and accept that there is a strong case for saying that it is a deregulation Bill?

Mr. Leigh: The whole House recognises the huge experience that the right hon. Gentleman brings to those matters, and no one doubts the—

Mr. Tom Clarke: Right honourable.

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, that the hon. Gentleman brings to those matters. [Interruption.] I said right honourable. Let us not get too bogged down in titles. No one doubts his huge experience and the sincerity that he brings to those matters.
No one in the House wants to do down disabled people. No one doubts that they are often confronted by severe difficulties. I do not doubt that. I am lucky. I am healthy; I have healthy children, but I know the appalling problems that confront disabled people and how frustrating it must be for them, for instance, when they come to an office building or a public building to which they cannot gain access. No one doubts the sincerity with which those matters are brought forward.
The research that I have been looking at, especially from America, which has been kindly provided to me, shows the enormous compliance costs that will be placed on business.

Mr. Alan Howarth: rose—

Lady Olga Maitland: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and then my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I hope that he will spell out the evidence that he has of enormous compliance costs. As he has obviously studied the Bill and its proceedings with care, and other relevant proceedings in the House, he will be aware of a parliamentary question that I put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. In his answer, my right hon. Friend refused point-blank to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of the measure.
We are, sadly, all too accustomed to the macabre frivolity which, over the years, has characterised the Treasury approach to questions of social responsibility. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary regards the Bill as simply another conspiracy on the part of the pressure groups which he believes are driving the country to the dogs. Would my hon. Friend care to make any comment on that, and especially will he give us the evidence he has of unsustainable costs, given that it is provided in the Bill—it was amended in Committee—that there should be reasonable and manageable time scales for the implementation of any changes?

Mr. Leigh: I understand why the Treasury was not prepared to answer that question. I should have thought that the work involved in the Treasury in seeking that type of information would be immensely time consuming and costly. I mentioned the American experience, where I am told that Government regulation costs at least $8,000 per household and may reduce national output by as much as $1.1 trillion per year. Unnecessary and inefficient regulation at federal, state and local levels is now costing American people between $810 billion and $1.7 trillion per year, even after taking account of the benefits of regulation, or between $8,400 and $17,000 per year per household.
Those may be exaggerations, but even the Bill's promoters would not doubt that extra burdens will be imposed on businesses. Otherwise, why should many organisations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses, repeatedly say that they hold nothing against disabled people and recognise the difficulties that they face, but provide us with detailed briefing showing the enormous regulatory burdens that would be imposed on businesses?
I am honest about the fact that I am speaking today because I do not want the Bill to pass into law. That is a perfectly honourable point of view.

Lady Olga Maitland: On the issue of cost burdens, has my hon. Friend taken into account the assessment made by the Conservative Disability Group, of which I am a sponsor, which says:
The cost of making all primary and secondary places of education accessible to disabled persons is estimated at £2 billion.
The direct cost to office buildings is estimated at £43.7 million"?
Is he also aware that the group has estimated the cost of converting all public buses to accommodate wheelchairs at some £10,000 per bus?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, I have a similar briefing—[Interruption.] That is not surprising. How are we expected to make a speech in the House of Commons unless we seek to obtain briefings from the Conservative Disability Group, the Institute of Directors, Mencap or anyone else? This debate has been conducted in an unpleasant manner, with unnecessary barracking, particularly from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), which has neither improved the atmosphere nor helped disabled people. We are entitled to our point of view. Is not that what the House of Commons is all about? We are also entitled to obtain briefs from various people.
The Conservative Disability Group says that the Bill is worthy and that the Government should examine the issues that it raises carefully and come up with an initiative that is practical, tested and of great benefit to disabled people—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has only just entered the Chamber.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have just been on the phone to Gainsborough.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has never shown any interest in my constituency before. I would welcome him in my constituency.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Gentleman referred to the experience in America. Has he read the excellent publication by Victoria Scott, who knows a great deal about disability, entitled "Lessons from America"? If so, has he noted on page 22 that the National Federation of Independent Businesses says that not one of its businesses has suffered unduly or gone out of business as a result of the American legislation? So employers in America have accepted the legislation. Where is the reason for us not to do the same?

Mr. Leigh: The American economy is complex, and political debate there is as robust as it is in our country. Either side of this debate could adduce arguments on their behalf. The hon. Gentleman may be in receipt of a background briefing from the Heritage Foundation, an organisation of which he may not approve ideologically.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A nasty bunch.

Mr. Leigh: That organisation has conducted some serious research. For instance, it says:
Between 1 January 1983 and 31 March 1990, private sector employment in the US economy grew by some 90 million jobs, rising from 72.8 million jobs in December 1982 to 91.8 million jobs in March 1990. However, over the next two years, the private sector lost nearly 2.2 million jobs, reaching a low of just over 89.6 million jobs in January 1992. The number of private sector jobs has recovered only slightly since then, rising to 90.1 million jobs.
So the only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he should look at the evidence, particularly of the regulatory burdens.
I see that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the amendments that I have tabled.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have just spoken to one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Gainsborough and I am informed that the disabled community in Gainsborough wants the Bill to go through this afternoon. Deep concern is being expressed in Gainsborough about what the hon. Gentleman is doing in the House today. Is he prepared to ask his hon. Friends to withdraw the amendments so that disabled people in Gainsborough can have the benefit of the Bill?

Mr. Leigh: I freely admit that disabled groups in my constituency want the Bill to go through. I do not deny that for a moment. I am in contact with them. The hon. Gentleman was not in his seat when I started my speech and honestly admitted that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The Chair wants new clause 3 to be debated rather than anything else.

Mr. Leigh: I shall now discuss amendment No. 55. One of the problems with the Bill is that it is shot through with drafting errors. Even if the House passed it, I doubt whether it would have a practical effect. No doubt the Minister, who is much better briefed on such matters than I am, can clarify the position for the House.
One issue that I am raising in my amendments is that —on page 18, line 15, clause 11—we ensure that we provide for conciliation by an officer of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service—ACAS. Clause 11 allows recourse to industrial tribunals. As a lawyer, all I


can say is that we have built up enormous problems for ourselves through existing employment law and the nature of industrial tribunals. Contrary to the barracking that I shall no doubt receive, if my sensible amendment, which provides for conciliation by an ACAS officer, is accepted—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you can help me. You will understand that when Members of Parliament are appointed Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Ministers they are under some restriction. I understand that that is not necessarily a matter for the House, but you might wish to comment on the rights of a PPS—in this case, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait)—to let her constituents know whether she is in favour of the legislation. I understand that they are concerned and that there have been conversations today. They would like to know whether she wants the Bill to proceed today—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair and I do not wish to comment.

Mr. Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has raised a number of bogus points of order this morning and has been brought up short by the Chair several times for that. Do you have powers to restrain his activities as he is disrupting the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has certain powers, but I see no reason to use them at present.

Mr. Leigh: I was describing how the conciliation could be carried out by an ACAS officer. He has a duty to try to encourage the respondent and the applicant to make a voluntary agreement. My amendment is entirely in the spirit of what I am trying to propose. I tabled it the day before yesterday in the spirit of what I am trying to achieve for disabled people in this country—things should be done by example and voluntary agreements. My objection to the Bill and the reason why I believe that it is fatally flawed is that it attempts to impose a regulatory structure and might ultimately have the opposite effect on disabled people to that which it is aiming to achieve.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to the powers that you have, which the House respects. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is not talking about the amendment, but about the Bill, is he in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave that to the Chair.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman and I know each other well, as we represent constituencies in a similar part of the world. I know that the hon. Gentleman comes from an extreme wing of the Conservative party, but, even so, I am not castigating him for that. We all know his views and he has an absolute right to criticise the Bill and vote against it. The bad atmosphere in the Chamber today has not been caused by his views, but by the methods that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are using to stop a democratic vote on a Bill which has a clear majority behind

it in the House. There is a feeling of frustration on both sides of the House and in the country that a strategy is being adopted to prevent a democratic vote from taking place. That is why we are angry.

Mr. Leigh: When I drew a place in the ballot, I ensured that I produced a Bill that was, I hope, interesting and had the support of both sides of the House and all the relevant interest groups. There is a long tradition that if one wants a private Member's Bill to become law, one has to present a Bill that is largely non-controversial. Disabled people have been misled into assuming that there was a chance of the Bill becoming law—there was not. A political gesture is being made. The process has been unpleasant because people have tried to fool disabled people into thinking that the measure will become law. There is never any chance of controversial legislation being introduced by a private Member.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman spoke about his amendments. Moreover, if he does not intend to give way, there is not much point in hon. Members jumping up and down.

Mr. Leigh: I am trying to talk about my amendments: the problem is that I keep being interrupted.

Mr. Berry: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Bill is sponsored by Members of all political parties in the House; that it has been as actively promoted by certain Conservative Members as by the Opposition; and that the all-party disablement group is enthusiastically behind it? Will he also acknowledge that the Prime Minister expressed in this Chamber the wish—

Mr. Don Dixon: That won't impress him.

Mr. Berry: Perhaps not. In any case, the Prime Minister said that he "looked forward" to a detailed examination of the Bill in Committee. If, as the hon. Gentleman maintains, the Bill was clearly worthless and incapable of being enacted, how could the Prime Minister, of all people, look forward to its scrutiny in Committee?

Mr. Leigh: There is no harm in Bills being examined in Committee, or in the fact that they may be promoted and supported by hon. Members on both sides. It is important to remember, however, that what we are witnessing today is perfectly normal parliamentary procedure. The same has happened to private Members' Bills many times in the past, and it will happen to them again. We are just as entitled to put across our points of view as others are entitled to theirs.
My amendments are simple. Amendment No. 54 allows an ACAS officer to seek a voluntary agreement. The ACAS officer would not offer any opinion on the merits of either side's case or take sides in any way. ACAS has an excellent record in these matters. It is far better that difficult cases be dealt with by conciliation from the start. The flaw in the Bill lies in the creation of a huge new and highly expensive legal structure which no doubt will have to be paid for by legal aid. That could result in consequences with effects opposite to those intended.
The amendment would also allow complaints to be settled by means of a compromise agreement, thus


enabling two sides to reach a binding agreement outside the industrial tribunal system, provided that the people involved are properly advised by qualified lawyers.

Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I speak as a member of the all-party disablement group; some of us voted for the Bill on Second Reading. My intervention is intended to be helpful.
One of my hon. Friend's concerns is with the overzealous application of regulation which might be detrimental to businesses and to employment prospects. I served on the Standing Committee considering the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. There, we introduced an idea which my hon. Friend might find useful. If a dispute is caused by the application of regulations by officialdom to a business or enterprise, that enterprise is entitled to go to a magistrates court and to ask for a stay of execution until the case is heard in full by a magistrate.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend brings his experience to these matters—it seems a worthwhile way of proceeding. We are trying to ensure that we resolve these disputes in the least possible bureaucratic way, avoiding long legal procedures that can be costly for both sides.
Amendment No. 57 allows for complaints to be settled by means of a compromise agreement between parties, when the complainant has been legally advised and specified conditions have been met, as an alternative to recourse to the industrial tribunal procedure. Thus, a binding agreement outside the industrial tribunal system becomes possible. That seems much more sensible.
Amendment No. 58 is also simple. It includes a right of appeal against an industrial tribunal decision to an industrial appeal tribunal. In general, the amendments are designed to ensure that disabled people have a right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. That is customary procedure, but it has been left out of the Bill. My amendments are clearly put. They would improve the Bill and I commend them to the House.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak at this point to the amendments and new clause, because time is limited and we have a number of other groups of amendments to discuss this afternoon.
Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, may I say that the accusation of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) had entered into a conspiracy with some of my hon. Friends in relation to progress on the Bill is utterly without foundation. I asked my hon. Friend, in her role as my Parliamentary Private Secretary, to ascertain which hon. Members intended to intervene, so that I could time my own speech in a suitable way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will utterly withdraw any accusation that he made towards my hon. Friend on that account.

Mr. Sheerman: If the right hon. Gentleman's PPS was circulating for that purpose, I apologise unreservedly. I was more concerned about the evidence outside the Chamber that she was talking to the same group of people, miraculously, who are now in the Chamber and talking the Bill out. That was what I was referring to. That is the problem. Everybody knows that there is a Government Whip-inspired attempt to stop the Bill.

Mr. Scott: I would have been more impressed if the hon. Gentleman had had the grace simply to withdraw his remark, which was totally unfounded.

Mr. Stern: On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is the second time this morning that statements have been made that are directly contrary to the truth. May I assure the House that, as one of the people to whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) clearly referred, I have had no discussion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Stern: May I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the statement that was just made, as applied to me, is wholly untrue?

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) moved the new clause and amendments that stand in her name. I believe that it would have been more in tradition with the keeping of the House if she been listened to and allowed to develop her arguments instead of having to endure a range of bullying interventions when presenting her arguments to the House. This is an immensely serious business. We know the impact on the lives of disabled people. It is right that we should address those matters in a mood of great seriousness.

Mr. Berry: I share the Minister's concern about the seriousness of the matter, as he well knows. Given that the matter is serious, will he tell the House the Government's response to the motion that was passed, without opposition, last Friday, urging the Government to provide adequate time for the remaining stages of the Bill? The Bill is sufficiently serious to require full consideration of its remaining stages.

Mr. Scott: I understand the feelings expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I am not in a position to respond to the point that he raised. He knows as well as I do that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put a point to my right hon. Friend the Lord President—I believe that it was last week—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Yesterday.

Mr. Scott: —and received a considered reply from him on the matter. It would not be prudent or wise of me to seek to expand on anything that was said by my right hon. Friend, who is, after all, in charge of the business of the House.

Mr. Skinner: What I said to the Lord President yesterday—the Minister was sitting next to him—was that the Government should recognise that a unique motion was passed unanimously last Friday calling on them to provide adequate time to ensure that the Bill got through, noting that, on 64 previous occasions in the past, Governments, both Tory and Labour, had given assistance to private Members' Bills and that it was not a precedent. We are asking the Government to observe the will of the House last Friday, which was expressed through its support for the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam). The Minister, who I expected to stand up yesterday and again today, has not responded. I ask him now: will he, on behalf of the Government, give a guarantee that they will provide adequate time in line with


that resolution so that disabled people throughout Britain in every constituency will get the benefits of equal treatment?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not in a position to give those undertakings. He raised the matter in the proper quarter and received an answer from the Lord President.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can answer this question. Have he or his Department been in any way involved in the drafting of any of the amendments or the new clause tabled by the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) or for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring)?

Mr. Scott: No part whatever in the drafting of any of the amendments and, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in my Department has been involved in the drafting of any amendments in this area.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Very early in these debates I raised the point that I had highly authoritative information that amendments on the amendment paper—the amendments that we are discussing now, among others—were drafted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no knowledge of being involved. Were they in any way contributed to or drafted in Whitehall—in other words, by the Government? As the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, the right hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in the matter.

Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman has put down a number of questions to the Lord President and I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for these matters, will give the right hon. Gentleman a reply to that matter. I have responded as best I can from the knowledge that I have in this situation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I intervene on that important point?

Mr. Scott: I have not given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful to the House and to the progress of the debate if the Minister were allowed to speak to the new clause and the associated amendments.

Mr. Scott: It might be sensible and for the good—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall keep it strictly in order. You heard the Minister say "to the best of my knowledge", which means that departmental officials will know the precise position. Could you on behalf of the House ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister is responsible for his own speech.

Mr. Scott: I have some sympathy for a number of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, but I should like to enter some caveats to her assessment of the effect of the Americans with Disabilities Act on the lives of disabled people and its impact on business in the United States. I do not want to go into detail

at the moment on that. Obviously, I have read more than once and with considerable care a document called "Lessons from America" on this issue.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps I could be allowed to complete a sentence. I do not think that I have yet managed to do that, but when I have I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great deal of respect.
I have some reservations about the Bill as it stands and support some of the amendments. The overwhelming impression is that business and providers of goods, services and facilities in the United States of America have reacted positively and constructively to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have not found the costs prohibitive. These are early days in the implementation of that legislation, but so far I do not have specific worries about the way in which it is proceeding.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister showed good sense in reading "Lessons from America", which was written by an excellent woman in this field, Victoria Scott. The great worry is that some people do not listen to her first-class advice. If she were offering advice at the Dispatch Box, would not she say to hon. Members that not a single argument has not been answered by that document? Such legislation works in American and it would work here.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman must judge what would be the response of that particular lady. It would be rash of me to interpret her views for the House.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that if we are to make legislation in this important area—this point was made several times in debate—we must take people with us. There is no use imposing legislation on reluctant providers of services or employers. The work of persuasion, raising awareness and educating people about the needs of disabled people—and the abilities that they can bring to various parts of society—must be acknowledged.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I do not mean to test my right hon. Friend's patience but to be constructive. He spoke of the need to carry people with him. He has often expressed his principled objection to discrimination and indicated his support for the manner in which the Bill addresses discrimination and its purposes. Where, then, is the difficulty in the Government? May I tempt him to set aside the obfuscation of collective responsibility and say whether the difficulty is to be found in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment? Have Ministers in those Departments not yet applied their minds to the issues? If so, it seems hard on my right hon. Friend to have to defend collective responsibility.

Mr. Scott: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should in any way doubt that Government is a totally seamless garment. I speak from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government as a whole. I am sure that all parts of Government agree that if we are to legislate in this sensitive and difficult area, we must get it right. I well understand—

Ms Lynne: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: Perhaps I may be permitted to complete two sentences this time.
I will refer later to the Government's reasons for not tabling amendments at Committee stage, but the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) will acknowledge that he responded to various points that I raised in discussions in Committee and accordingly produced amendments. There is still work to be done on the shape of the legislation, so I am not surprised that some of my hon. Friends felt it necessary today to table a range of amendments at least to explore the possibility of further improving the Bill.

Ms Lynne: rose—

Mr. Berry: rose—

Mr. Scott: I give way first to the hon. Lady.

Ms Lynne: The Minister said that, to the best of his knowledge, his Department did not give any information for the briefing of Conservative Members who tabled amendments. Will he ask his officials whether anyone in his Department had any knowledge of the tabling of amendments on behalf of the Government? I should be grateful for an answer.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Lady will not get one. In my view, she and other hon. Members are embarking on a fruitless exercise. I should much prefer to get down to the merits of the amendments and new clauses. If the hon. Lady, together with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe, wants to pursue that matter with my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council—

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not seem to be getting far with discussing the new clause.

Mr. Berry: The Minister spoke of making further improvements to the Bill and he mentioned the seamless garment of Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that disabled people and many hon. Members are frustrated because while the Government make statements about improving the Bill, they are—either through lack of time or because of the sudden emergence of 80 amendments—wrecking the Bill? Does the Minister appreciate that we are being told different things by different parts of the Government? That explains our frustration this afternoon.

Mr. Scott: I have some understanding of that, although the most important thing is to address ourselves to the business with which we are dealing and that is the Report stage of, the Bill. As part of that consideration, it is perfectly proper for my hon. Friends to table amendments which they believe would improve the legislation.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry, but this is the House of Commons and Conservative Members will not get away with what is happening today.
I want to ask the Minister a question that was asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). Will the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), ask the civil servants in the Box whether they are aware of departmental officials giving any help in the drafting of amendments, or handing them to Conservative Members or of Conservative

Members having been briefed? We are simply asking the Minister to turn to his PPS and ask her to ask the civil servants so that we can have an answer. We notice that the Minister hid behind the words—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention. I repeat that it is time that we debated new clause 3 and the amendments associated with it.

Mr. Scott: All of us who have been engaged in the passage—

1 pm

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is extremely important to us, so I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 0.

Division No. 229]
[1.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Austin-Walker, John
Lidington, David


Berry, Roger
Livingstone, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Booth, Hartley
Lynne, Ms Liz


Bowden, Andrew
McCartney, Ian


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Miller, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Clapham, Michael
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Pendry, Tom


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cohen, Harry
Quin, Ms Joyce


Congdon, David
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Sheerman, Barry


Cummings, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Sims, Roger


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Skinner, Dennis


Dicks, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Dixon, Don
Soley, Clive


Dover, Den
Spearing, Nigel


Fraser, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Hannam, Sir John
Tyler, Paul


Hinchliffe, David
Waller, Gary


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Walley, Joan


Hoyle, Doug
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Mr. Harry Barnes.


NOES


Nil


Tellers for the Noes:



Lady Olga Maitland and



Mr. Michael Stern.

Whereupon MR DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for Closure or for proposal of question).

Mr. Scott: I was saying when the closure was moved that the attitude of employers and providers of services in Britain to the possibility of legislation in this important area was changing. As the new clause is particularly about employers, I should like to mention them specifically. We have had recognition from the Confederation of British Industry and other organisations of employers that action, including legislation, is acceptable.
The Employers Forum on Disability has given a considerable lead in influencing opinion among employers


more widely and it is to be congratulated on the steps that it has taken. Employers still have concerns about the precise nature of the legislation, not least about the impact that it might have on their costs. They worry about the lack of consultation—a subject to which I shall return in a moment.
We have also heard about the insurance industry and fears that it may have.

Mr. Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Scott: No, I am sorry, but I will not give way again for some time because it is important to have a coherent presentation—or as coherent as I can make it—of the Government's position. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
I received a letter from the Association of British Insurers today, stating that it supports the Bill, but making it absolutely clear that that support is given with the vital proviso that the Bill be amended to allow exemption for insurers so that they can continue to differentiate between risks. I believe that the sponsors have already given an assurance to the ABI on that matter, but it was important to draw the attention of the House to the existence of that letter as we are discussing such matters.
1.15 pm
Employers' attitudes are changing positively. It would have been wise for the sponsors of the Bill to begin consulting employers earlier. I am not making a great issue of that. However, the hon. Member for Kingswood said that he had been consulting in recent days and intended to carry on the consultations. He would have been wiser to have those consultations and reassure employers and others—the Bill could have an impact on their businesses and costs—before the Bill began its stages in the House, rather than having to deal with their concerns rather late in the day. Consultation, especially on the impact of the costs imposed by the Bill, should have been the sponsors' responsibility and they came to it rather late in the day. Those involved who contacted me on the matter certainly expressed that view. Having recognised that change of attitude, which has increasingly been reflected by employers, I must deal with the new clauses and amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam tabled new clause 3, which is important, as are the amendments associated with it. It would be important for any legislation on the subject to ensure that unscrupulous employers could not hide behind the defence that an act of discrimination had been committed by someone else, even if acting on their behalf. I made clear my reservations about the legislative approach that the Bill's sponsors took. If the Act is to be effective, employers must take responsibility for ensuring that their staff and agents are aware of its provisions and are suitably trained to act accordingly.
The Government have always maintained that the key to changing attitudes is improved awareness and training. As I made clear on another occasion, whatever its merits the Bill would not remove the need for continued education and for raising awareness about disability. Of course, one can legislate to remove discrimination, but prejudice, misunderstandings and other problems cannot be removed simply by legislation. If society is to arrive at a better understanding of the needs of disabled people we need much education and persuasion. We will achieve that

understanding through better training and education on the issue and through raising the general level of awareness in society.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I entirely agree about the importance of education, but does my right hon. Friend also agree that legislation is necessary to shift the culture and to make it possible for such education to be more effective?
Even though my right hon. Friend sees flaws in the Bill and scope for it to be improved, will he allow it to proceed beyond Third Reading to another place, where the Government could table amendments to improve it? If he feels that the Bill is not capable of satisfactory amendment, will he undertake to embark on a consultation process on a draft Bill, which the Government could introduce? The Government could commit themselves to introducing a Bill with which they are satisfied in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Scott: It might be an appropriate moment to say that, having considered the provisions of the Bill and the arguments put forward, the Government intend to build further on the considerable advances that have been made as a result of our approach of education and persuasion, which I spoke about just now. We have introduced targeted legislation in this connection before and it has had an effect on people's attitude and approach to disability issues.
When the Bill was introduced, I expressed concern that it was in exactly the same form as it had appeared on previous occasions. I accept, of course, that it is a private Member's Bill and that it was difficult for the sponsors to engage in the sort of consultation in which the Government would be able to engage, were they introducing their own legislation. It is right for me to make it clear today that the Government intend to consult widely on proposals in a number of important areas concerning disability.
At the end of that process, the Government would be prepared to consider assisting in the drafting of any necessary workable and practicable legislation. We propose that the issues that should be covered by that consultation and by possible legislation should be employment, access to goods and services, the provision of financial services, building regulations, as they affect the lives of disabled people and the creation of a new advisory body on disability. Those proposals, Mr. Deputy Speaker, manifestly go wider than employment, which is strictly the subject of the amendments, but, in view of the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), it was useful for me to put on record the Government's intention.

Mr. Tom Clarke: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was a comprehensive Act on disability and much more wide ranging than the appealing, limited Bill before us, was amended greatly in another place, because there was consensus and consultation took place? Does he accept that there is no reason in the world why time cannot be given for the Bill today and for it to be considered in due course in another place?

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear whether the Minister is giving way.

Mr. Scott: I thought that it might be for the convenience of the House if I gave way in series to those hon. Members who wish to intervene.

Mr. Wigley: As I am still on my feet, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I seek clarification from the Minister about what he meant by saying that the Government may help to draft legislation. Is he saying that the Government are prepared to introduce their own legislation, as opposed to helping to draft a private Member's Bill, if an hon. Member were lucky to be selected in the ballot? Is he working to a timetable that would enable such legislation, whether it was included in the Queen's Speech or introduced by a Back Bencher as a result of the ballot next year, to reach the statute book in the coming year? In the context of the consultations that he will hold, is he talking about anti-discrimination legislation?

Mr. Scott: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final point would be broadly yes, some statutory rights in terms of discrimination would be included. I would not want to be pressed now on the nature and timing of that legislation. The Government will—

Ms Joan Walley: rose—

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Lady will control her impatience for just for a moment, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley).
More than one piece of legislation may be necessary, although I do not want to pre-empt anything. The timing of that legislation might depend on the nature and extent of our consultations and the reactions to them. I can certainly offer the hon. Member my assurance that the Government have no intention of unduly delaying the process in any sense. The Government, having come to the view that it is the right way to proceed, certainly will want to do so with some speed.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way? I am grateful to the Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way or is he sitting down? He is giving way.

Mr. Berry: I appreciate that the Minister wishes to appear reasonable, albeit at the 11th hour, but can he confirm that what he is not offering the House is Government support for a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation and that, indeed, what he has alluded to in a few choice phrases is significantly different from the comprehensive civil rights Bill that disabled people throughout the country are known to want as quickly as possible?

Mr. Scott: I acknowledge that there are significant differences between a comprehensive Bill of the nature that which we are discussing today, and the consultative process and the implications of further action which would flow from the announcement that I have just made.

Ms Walley: Can the Minister confirm that we already have an opportunity to do something about the issue? Why cannot he give a commitment that the consultation process that he is speaking about can start to take place now and be completed while the Bill passes through the legislative

procedure? Surely he is simply deferring and deferring, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) said—putting off something that he is not prepared to say openly that he is putting off.

Mr. Scott: With respect, in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend, who was pressing me to, as it were, short-circuit the arguments that I was developing about the new clause and amendments that we are discussing, I simply sought to give the House, I thought, the benefit of some advance notice of the intentions of the Government. I do not think that it would be right for me to go any further than that today because obviously the Government are still considering the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I take note of what the Minister has just said, but I have been very indulgent so far. The debate has gone rather wide. Can we now get back to the new clause that we are discussing with the associated amendments?

Mr. Scott: I am willing to return to that. If I could say only one sentence: of course we would ensure that, in moving down the route that I have indicated, we undertook widespread consultation, not only with those who might be affected in terms of costs or impact on their businesses, but manifestly with the organisations of and for disabled people, in this specific and very sensitive area.

Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Scott: I am conscious of the Chair's ruling, but I give way.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend.
With regard to those specific amendments, given the important announcement that he has just made about the future intentions of Government policy, which is a major development, would amendments— [Interruption.]—of the nature that we are discussing now be necessary, or would the legislation that he proposes be restricted and limited, to avoid the wide problems that develop from that comprehensive type of legislation?

Mr. Scott: It is too early for me to give such a judgment. I nevertheless believe, and have believed throughout the passage of the Bill, as I hope that I have demonstrated, that, whatever the outcome of the legislative procedure on which we are embarked, discussion in the House of the issues surrounding matters of discrimination and the role that the law might have in combating that in a range of areas is worth while, because every bit of discussion that we have further informs, not only the House, but those who develop policy officially.

Mr. Dicks: My right hon. Friend the Minister knows how much I respect his work for the disabled. My disability affects the motor part of the brain rather than the thinking part. This seems to be just another cover-up and another delay to avoid introducing legislation. Does my right hon. Friend understand that disabled people cannot gain the access or help that they want? To hear the Minister say that he may be taking the matter forward by delaying it even more is nonsense. Many people without limbs have brains and they know what is going on. They want action today. As a loyal Tory Back-Bench Member, I cannot understand the Government's problem in bringing in the Bill.

Mr. Scott: My hon. Friend will recognise that the announcement that I have been able to make was as a result of considerable discussions within Government on the way forward. If we are to legislate in this area, we must be sure that we get the legislation right, that it is workable, workmanlike, practicable and based on widespread consultation both with those who would benefit from such legislation and those who may have to alter their practices to comply with the legislation. But if we enter into that consultation, it will be in a positive frame of mind. I am not seeking to delay matters. If we pass the Bill today and it goes through another place, many of those steps would not happen tomorrow, but would take a long time to come into effect—[Interruption.] I advise those Opposition Members who are fussing to listen and see the terms of further Government announcements in due course, and then respond to them.
As I was saying when the closure motion was moved, the clause would compel employers to evaluate the guidance given to staff and procedures being used. It would ensure that employers were properly responsible for the actions of their staff and agents in that important area. That, of itself, must be a good thing. Even in the best organised company with the most enlightened training programmes, there are bound occasionally to be employees who do not respond. The clause would allow an employer who had done all that he could to prevent unjustifiable discrimination to defend himself. The new clause is an important and sensible addition to the Bill.
On amendment No. 4, the Standing Committee amended the Bill by modifying the definition of "employer" in clause 1. Instead of the definition under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which gives a small business exemption for employers with fewer than 20 employees, the definition now contained in the Bill as amended no longer provides that exemption and extends to An
employer under a contract for services".
Discussion in Standing Committee focused largely on the removal of the small employer exemption and amendment No. 4 allows the House to reflect on whether the treatment of employed and self-employed people can be assimilated as easily as the Bill's sponsors suggest. A person "employed" under a contract for services is any self-employed person supplying services to the business, be it a window cleaner, a computer consultant or an independent lawyer or other professional.
However, the rest of the Bill is drafted with "employees", as commonly understood, in mind. Thus, in clause 1, the definition of "qualified disabled person" means a disabled person who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position—I emphasise that word—that he holds or desires. In the same way, clause 4 talks of job discrimination in relation to job application procedures, the hiring, promotion or dismissal of employees, employee compensation, training and any other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Clause 4(2) continues in a similar vein, with aspects that are apt to be settled by the relationship between employer and employee, not to the much more varied and episodic relationships between an employer and an outside contractor. Clause 4(4) tackles the meaning of "reasonable accommodation" and talks of job restructuring, instituting

part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to vacant positions and appropriate adjustment or modification of examining training materials or policies, which are more appropriate to the employer-employee relationship. The enforcement machinery of complaint to an industrial tribunal would confer on that body a potentially far-reaching and novel jurisdiction in relation to contractual disputes between business and self-employed contractors with which the tribunals are not familiar and which might have a significant impact on their case load and staffing.
The corresponding provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976 phrase their prohibitions differently, focusing on the employment rather than the employer. Section 4(2) of the Race Relations Act makes it
unlawful for a person, in the case of a person employed by him at an establishment in Great Britain, to discriminate".
At the same time, "employment" is defined by section 78 of the Act to mean employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship or a contract personally to execute any work or labour. That tortuous explanation illustrates that the present Bill may be deficient in its treatment of contracts of apprenticeship, which the law recognises as distinct from contracts of employment. The Bill is perhaps over-ambitious in its all-embracing sweeping up of all contracts for services, as opposed to the more limited category of contracts personally to execute any work or labour.
The Bill's sponsors may have been unduly influenced by American models and terminology which may not always adapt precisely to the United Kingdom's legal framework and conditions. The sponsors have departed from our United Kingdom domestic models in the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. It will be for them to consider the concept of reasonable accommodation and how that might apply to relations between businesses and their arm's length self-employed contractors.
On amendment No. 5, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam that the words "under those Acts" seem to add nothing to the meaning of the Bill's definition of "employer". Indeed, I fear that they might cause confusion by seeming to refer to a mysterious set of Acts—"those Acts"—that are not mentioned earlier in the Bill. The removal of those words would clarify the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) mentioned some sensitive areas of discrimination in employment. As I said in the House on 11 March —and, indeed, on many other occasions—it is the Government's aim that disabled people should be recognised as people with abilities who can contribute to wider society in the same way as anyone else. I recognise the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend in moving amendments Nos. 26 and 32. I have mixed feelings about some of the precise issues raised by my hon. Friend, but we can all agree that the Bill proposes to outlaw discrimination. We have to examine some of the detailed difficulties that might arise from the drafting of the present Bill and we must be concerned about indirect discrimination.
It is more difficult to determine precisely how we can tackle indirect discrimination in this sector than it might be in a number of others. Indirect discrimination can be shown much more clearly in matters of race or sex, but it might be more difficult to demonstrate in the case of disabled people. The group is not homogenous—it


involves a wide range of disabilities and the varying effect of those disabilities on individuals might make it much more difficult to establish what constitutes indirect discrimination. It might be worth the Bill's sponsors giving that subject further consideration.

Ms Lynne: The Minister said that it might be more difficult to demonstrate indirect discrimination in relation to disabled people than to other groups. If he recognised that before, why did not he table amendments in Committee so that we could have discussed Government-tabled amendments there, instead of having to waste the time of the House today and have a disgraceful filibuster on the Bill to prevent disabled people from enjoying their just rights?

Mr. Scott: I hope that the hon. Lady is not accusing me of filibustering. I am trying to respond to points raised in the debate. As for my approach to the Bill in Committee, I was trying to fulfil the remit given me by the Prime Minister, which was to examine the Bill and to raise points of concern that presented themselves to me. In a number of cases, the Bill's sponsors responded with improvements. I thought that that was more in tune with my remit than if I started tabling amendments in Committee.

Mr. Berry: Surely the Minister accepts that that approach was consistent with his remit only if that remit involved ensuring that the Bill was talked out on Report.

Mr. Scott: That is a statement by the hon. Gentleman—it is not one which I would wish to comment on or agree with. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, in Committee we significantly improved the Bill, partly as a result of contributions that I was able to make and partly as a result of his generosity in responding to the points that I put to him.
The Government's view is that the Bill is still defective. It does not take sufficient account of the impact of the costs that it will involve. We were asked to produce a compliance cost assessment for the Bill. It has now been produced for the House. I acknowledge that it does not include the cost-benefit analysis which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and others were keen to have. Nevertheless, the compliance cost assessment shows that the up-front costs of introducing the Bill could be as high as £17 billion, with on-going costs of £1 billion a year.
This was the best that the Government could do in the face of the legitimate demands by those interested in the subject that we produce a compliance cost assessment. We had to ask Departments, under severe time pressure, to produce their assessments of what the costs in their areas of policy would be. Then we brought together those costs into the single figure that I have just given the House. I am sure that all who take an interest in these matters will in due course want to look carefully at the assessment to make up their minds about the approach that should be adopted.

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister acknowledge that this is the first time he has given that information to those who have been promoting the Bill? As he said, the Bill has been knocking around for two years. He has been engaged in discussions with the all-party disablement group on this very Bill for two years. How is it that, at 1.42 pm, less than an hour before the end of the Report stage, the Minister can

introduce information for which we have been asking for months? Does he feel no embarrassment about behaving in this way?

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is generally the practice—whether it is law I am not sure —not to produce compliance cost assessments until after Bills have been given a Second Reading. After Second Reading, we were under considerable pressure to produce an assessment. We set the work in hand, and only in the past few days have we been given the strands of information produced by Departments which in turn have enabled us to give the information to the House.
I thought that it would be helpful, as I now have the information, to give it to the House today.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My right hon. Friend has provided us with figures only on one side of the equation: the negatives. Will he explain why the Government regard it as out of the question to make an assessment of the benefits, too? It is entirely within the practice and experience of the Treasury to feed new variables into its models and predictions when it makes assessments of the prospects for the economy. The Government could perfectly well do that task—so why do they not do it?

Mr. Scott: My understanding is that the Government have a duty to provide a compliance cost assessment, and copies of it were placed in the Library yesterday afternoon, as my hon. Friend is aware. There is no such duty to produce—

Mr. Berry: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Scott: Not when I have already started replying to an intervention. The hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him and that I never decline to give way to him, but, as I am already replying to an intervention from my hon. Friend, I think that he owes me the courtesy of allowing me to finish.

The Government do not have any sort of duty to produce a cost-benefit analysis. I understand that that might be useful to the House and have suggested on previous occasions that the sponsors and promoters of the Bill address their minds to the benefits that would flow from the introduction of the legislation that they are undertaking. They could at least start a debate, which might be useful and in which Ministers could take part, on the relative costs and benefits that would flow from such legislation. The Government have complied with their duty —to provide a compliance cost assessment.

Mr. Berry: The Minister now tells me that a document was placed in the Library yesterday afternoon. I ask my questions as a new Member. First, is there any obligation at all on the Minister to inform the promoter of the Bill that that' information is available in the Library? Secondly, as I have not received any such information, is it in the post? Thirdly, is it purely fortuitous that that information should arrive the day before the Bill is on Report?

Mr. Scott: As a courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. We would normally have informed the promoter of a private Member's Bill. If there was any discourtesy, I apologise to him. Under the rules, compliance cost assessments must be before the House before the Bill is on Report. That is why they were put down yesterday


afternoon, the earliest possible moment, as soon as that piece of documentation reached my desk. I did my best and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that his attention was not drawn to the fact.
If I can move on—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said earlier and I have been very indulgent. Hon. Members are straying wider and wider from the clause and amendments. The Minister and all hon. Members must get back to them.

Mr. Scott: Obviously, I am anxious to stick as closely to the straight and narrow as I possibly can. I shall seek not to be persuaded away from that by further interventions.
Amendment No. 30 follows earlier suggested amendments to the definitions of "qualified disabled persons" which seek to remove the requirement to make reasonable accommodation for disabled employees. Many employers might consider that aspect of the Bill a burden and be turned against the main spirit of it as a result, but my judgment is that employers would be persuadable in that area. Some might be turned against the Bill by that provision, but I believe that attitudes of employers are changing at the moment. We want them to change still faster.
On amendment No. 35, there would be some merit in having a less complex clause that would enable respective Secretaries of State, in consultation with outside bodies, or with each other where necessary, to determine what regulations might be needed for the various purposes.
As we can see, the term "reasonable accommodation" used in the Bill covers a whole range of specific employment issues, including that of making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to, and usable by, disabled people. Inevitably, it would be difficult to make existing places of employment and individual workstations "readily accessible and usable". The introduction of such a term could have quite onerous design implications. Such differing terms in the Bill could lead to inconsistency in interpretation and a common presentation would be useful.
Clause 4(2)(a), which is the trigger for clause 4(4), uses the term "reasonable" and so do, for instance, relevant parts of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and the requirements of part M of the building regulations. Their consistency has some merit and they form a better basis for guidance.
The House will be aware from previous statements and from the earlier part of my speech that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is assessing the practicality of extending access regulations to alterations and to non-domestic buildings. If he decides to introduce such requirements, there would clearly be some interface between any statutory duty laid on employers to make the "reasonable accommodation" that is sought by the Bill and whatever "reasonable provision" would be required because of changes in the building regulations.
I shall now deal with amendment No. 77. As the Bill stands, the commission may refer any cases of discrimination in "the employment field" or "in any other field"—that is to say, in any field whatever. I am convinced that the commission's discretion to make such references should be strictly limited to those areas covered by the

legislation. The terms "employment field" and "any other field" are extraordinarily imprecise and too widely drawn and could create uncertainty and confusion. The amendments do much to overcome that problem.
I welcome amendment No. 58 which seeks to ensure that a disabled person would have the right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. Industrial tribunals are the proper form for the referral of any complaints that might arise from part III of the Bill.
Clause 11 provides that a complaint arising from part III should be considered by an industrial tribunal. It describes the remedies that tribunals may award if a complaint is upheld. However, it is out of line with existing legislation in respect of complaints taken to industrial tribunals. As I understand it, other legislation in this field—for example, the Race Relations Act 1976—allows that where a case has been taken to an industrial tribunal and the decision is unfavourable, the complainant may take the case to appeal. Therefore, if clause 11 is amended, it will simply be brought into accord with other legislation in this area.
As I said, the amendments would provide for a right of appeal on a question of law to an industrial appeal tribunal. It is the normal provision for appeals against an industrial tribunal decision to go, on a point of law, to the employment appeals tribunal.
As I said some time ago when I started my speech, employment is an important area, but there are other important areas. Access not just to premises but to goods and facilities, to which we may shortly turn, are also important, but employment matters a great deal and I have had time only to skim the surface on this group of amendments. I thank my hon. Friends for giving me the opportunity to discuss the amendments with them and no doubt they will consider my remarks, as I hope will all hon. Members.

Mr. Sheerman: Hon. Members who have followed the progress of the Bill from the beginning will know that it is certainly against my nature to be party political or partisan, but I have bitten my tongue and in Committee, on Second Reading and at other stages in the progress of the Bill I have tried to put my party hat slightly to one side to make progress on the Bill, which has support in all parts of the House. The Bill has the whole-hearted support of the Opposition because it is part of our policy commitment to introduce such legislation.
We must also inform the general public, the disabled, and those who have a disabled family member, by putting the record straight on what happened today—which was shameful. I greatly respect the Minister, but he is the master of the honeyed phrase. He is good at presenting a bad case. What happened today was as we predicted. The Government have murdered the Bill procedurally. We warned the House of that, and we warned the public not to build their hopes too high because we suspected that the Government would ultimately do as they have. We saw that process unfold this morning. We saw Conservative Members clearly organised by the Whips.
We even saw amendments tabled. Those of us who examine legislation requently can recognise a Government-drafted amendment when we see one. I am not saying that it was directly done, but I share the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for an investigation into who supplied the amendments that were tabled in such large numbers over the past couple of days.
It was discourteous, to say the least, for information relating to the Bill to be made available in the House only the day before this debate—on a Thursday when most right hon. and hon. Members were in their constituencies to help their local council candidates.
The Government have killed the Bill cynically. They organised its destruction. That is not to say that some Conservative Members—such as the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—did not work extremely hard to get the Bill through Committee and to make it a success. The Bill was murdered as a result of Government conspiracy and certainly not with the support of all their Back Benchers.
The Minister had the cheek to accuse Opposition Members of using bullying tactics when the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) moved her new clause. He knows why feeling is so high today. It is because the majority of right hon. and hon. Members and the public favour the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman was campaigning in Chelsea yesterday, as I was in Huddersfield, he would have picked up on doorsteps the weary cynicism of the electorate towards the House of Commons. It grows every time they see the kind of activity of which we have been part today, in which there has been behind-the-scenes engineering so that the will of the people is not expressed by a vote of the House. The public expected an honest vote.
An early-day motion supporting the Bill received majority support. There followed a Second Reading and the Committee stage. Last Friday, the House unanimously supported a motion to give the Bill adequate time. Instead, we saw the actions of a cynical Government. I blame not just the Prime Minister but the Secretary of State for Social Security. I know that is difficult for the Minister, because the Secretary of State is his boss. Nevertheless, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) is totally against the principles of the Bill and everything that it represents. I know that, and most right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House know it.

Mr. Dicks: It must not be forgotten that if the narks who delayed the Bill had not been prepared to do that, members of my Front Bench could not have achieved their objective.

Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He calls them narks. I call them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us stop calling, hon. Members anything and return to discussing the new clause.

Mr. Sheerman: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not going to call them names. I merely wanted to say that the hon. Lady who moved the new clause and those who have supported it and the amendments so vociferously are, if we look at their entries in "Who's Who", dripping with privilege. In that regard, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—

Mr. Dicks: He has done a runner.

Mr. Sheerman: As the hon. Gentleman says, he has done a runner. Those hon. Members and others have every privilege of wealth and education. Their lives are liberated to the fullest extent, but they are trying to prevent disabled people from having the basic rights that they demand.
2 pm
New clause 3 and the amendments have been filibustered. The Minister spoke for 50 minutes. However, I shall be very brief. What has happened today is a disgrace and a slur on our parliamentary institutions. The Government will be held to account. This shabby little effort, this white rabbit which has been picked out of the hat today by the Minister, is not a piece of anti-discrimination legislation but an excuse for not giving the House the right to vote for what disabled people want.

Mr. Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may assist the House if I say that new clause 3 does not present a problem for the Bill's supporters. I am happy to accept new clause 3.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have to make up its mind when the time comes.

Lady Olga Maitland: It is time that we put politics aside on the important issue of the disabled. It is a great slur on the character of the Labour party to suggest that anyone who dares to say, "Let us stop and think clearly and carefully about this Bill" is reprehensible. Surely it is far more reprehensible to go willy-nilly down the road and make errors on the way.

Ms Lynne: I remind the hon. Lady that the Bill has all-party support. Members of her own Back Benches support it, for the very reason that disabled people need civil rights legislation. No doubt her disgraceful behaviour today will be noted in her constituency.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that it was Labour party policy to focus on the disabled. He somehow suggested that no one else cared about the disabled. He is wrong. He also made the great slur—

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that we are awaiting a reply from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to show that she notes that we have accepted new clause 3 and therefore wish to proceed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman anticipated me. I was about to remind the hon. Lady that we are still considering new clause 3 and the associated amendments, although there has been an indication that, when the time comes, the new clause will be accepted.

Lady Olga Maitland: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just making a point and I now wish to withdraw.—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For clarification, do I understand that the hon. Lady said that she was withdrawing the new clause?

Lady Olga Maitland: I think that we had better clarify exactly where we are on this. If Labour Members would bear with me, I was under the impression that I was now able to move on to my amendments in the next group. Is that not correct?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question has not yet been put.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I now understand that the hon. Lady does not wish to move the new clause. Is that correct?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read the Second Time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that you saw the Government Whip give the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) instructions during that period of confusion? That should clearly be on the record because it proves that the Government's fingerprints are all over what is happening this morning.

Mr. Dicks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has happened is an example of the fact that if one is going to get it right, one does not send a girl to do a woman's job—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the end of this bogus point of order—

Mr. Dicks: I was not being sexist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am beginning to think that people cannot hear my voice.

Clause 1

INTERPRETATION

Lady Olga Maitland: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
' "disabled person" means a person who—

(a) is blind, deaf or without speech;
(b) suffers from mental disorder of any description; and
(c) is substantially and permanently handicapped by illness, injury, congenital abnormality or such other disability as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;

and "disability" shall be construed accordingly;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out from
'means' to end of line 23 and insert—
', in relation to—

(a) any employment under a contract of service, the employer or, in the case of an application for such employment, the person who would be the employer, and
(b) Crown service, or an application for appointment to Crown service, the Crown;
"employment" means employment under a contract of service or Crown service, Crown service being for this purpose—

(a) service for purposes of a Minister of the Crown or government department, other than service of a person holding a statutory office, or
(b) service on behalf of the Crown for purposes of a person holding a statutory office or purposes of a statutory body, but does not include service in the naval, military of air forces of the Crown;'.
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out from 'disability' to end of line 28.
No. 38, in clause 6, page 6, leave out line 29.
No. 81, in page 6, line 31, leave out ', sea or air' and insert 'or sea'.
No. 39, in page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 39.
No. 40, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'()This section does not apply to the sale of any interest in land on the open market as between a willing seller and a willing buyer.'.
No. 41, in page 6, line 46, at end insert—
'() Nothing in this Act shall be taken to affect the operation of paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1985 (execptions to right to buy) or paragraph 11 of that Schedule (sheltered accommodation).'.
No. 61, in clause 13, page 9, line 16, leave out "'or deaf" and insert
'or deaf or are without speech".'.
No. 63, in page 9, line 17, leave out "disability" and insert "abnormality"
No. 62, in clause 17, page 9, line 36, at end insert—'

(2A) Part IV of this Act—

(a) does not apply to the provision of goods, facilites or services outside the United Kingdom except as mentioned in subsections (2B) and (2C) below; and
(b) does not apply to facilites by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance, where the facilities are for a purpose to be carried out, or in connection with risks wholly or mainly arising, outside the United Kingdom.

(2B) Part IV of this Act applies to the provision of facilities for travel outside the United Kingdom where the act of exclusion, denial or discrimination occurs in the United Kingdom or on a ship, aircraft or hovercraft to which subsection (2C) applies.
(2C) This subsection applies to—

(a) any ship registered at a port of registry in the United Kingdom; and
(b) any aircraft or hovercraft registered in the United Kingdom and operated by a person who has his principal place of business, or is ordinarily resident, in the United Kingdom,
even if the ship, aircraft or hovercraft is outside the United Kingdom at the material time.
(2D) Nothing in this Act shall render unlawful an act done in a country outside the United Kingdom, or in or over that country's territorial waters, for the purpose of complying with the laws of that country.'.
No. 78, in schedule, page 13, line 22, leave out 'in any other field' and insert
'in contravention of Part IV of this Act'.

Lady Olga Maitland: The amendments refer to the new definition of "disability". They recognise that the word "disability" can have many different interpretations. There is always a danger of using a form of words that is so woolly as to be virtually useless or so narrow as to exclude many of the people whom one is trying to help. The definition in clause 1 is a brave attempt to cover the variety of conditions as a result of which discrimination may be encountered. However, it strikes me as being too broad and, in some respects, far too uncertain in its scope. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement on the meaning of "major life activities".

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been to the Library to collect a copy of the compliance costs assessment on the Bill, of which only two copies were published. We tried to establish on what basis the document was placed in the Library.
I have been referred to a reply to the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) on 13 October last year which deals with the placing of these documents in the House of Commons. I notice that, because the Bill is primary legislation, the document should have formed part of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill. At no stage does the reply say that the document should have been placed in the Library immediately prior to the Report stage. My inference from the reply is that the document should have been made available to Parliament substantially earlier than last night because no hon. Member has had the opportunity of seeing its fairly remarkable findings. In the


light of that—it is clear that our rules have been abused —is it in order for us to proceed with the Bill? Would it perhaps be in order if the Bill were to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is quite in order to proceed with the Bill. The Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said; it is a matter for the Minister.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it different from the previous point on which I have just ruled?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My point is that perhaps the sitting should be suspended and that additional time should be given to the Bill so that the matter of the compliance cost assessment, which is critical to the Government's case —the Government are putting a high cost on the implementation of the Bill—can be fully considered by the House before it takes a decision on the future of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this stage, I do not take that view.

Lady Olga Maitland: To recap, I was raising the issue of definition. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement about the meaning of "major life activities" in clause 1.

Mrs. Irene Adams: I wonder about the hon. Lady's mentality when she describes definitions. As I was coming to the Chamber today along Grange road in Bermondsey, I had to stop my car in the middle of the road while my daughter got out to help an elderly man in a wheelchair along the road who could not negotiate the kerbs on to the pavement. That was for a stretch of a mile. I challenge the hon. Lady to take that same journey. She should get into a wheelchair and negotiate her way up and down the kerbs on such a road and then see how she would determine severity.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, but perhaps she should be reminded that the authority for the area to which she refers is Labour controlled. She should look to her own kind. [Interruption.]

Mr. McMaster: That is a disgrace.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. I repeat for the third time that both I and my predecessor have been very indulgent. The debates have at times gone rather wide of the new clause and amendments that we are debating. That is the end of it. We will stick to the amendments that we are debating.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we should concentrate on the main issues.

Mr. Alan Howarth: May I put it to my hon. Friend that she is not under any obligation to make a speech? She can withdraw her amendments and, if my other hon. Friends who have tabled amendments are willing to do likewise, it is still not too late for us to proceed to Third Reading and vote. I put it to her that many millions of people in this country wish her to follow that course.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you very much. I have to tell my hon. Friend that I intend to carry on with my

explanation because I feel that it would be an error of judgment to skate over problems in the Bill which it would be a great folly to ignore. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will continue if I may. I am not convinced—

Ms Angela Eagle: Has the hon. Lady considered that if she carries on with her amendments she will kill the Bill? Will she tell the House what payment has been made to her for the favour that she has been doing the Government Whips today?

Lady Olga Maitland: I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw her remarks.

Mr. Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has just accused my hon. Friend of accepting a bribe. That must surely be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Lady do that. If she did, I am sure that she would want to reconsider.

Ms Eagle: I did not refer to money at all. I did not accuse the hon. Lady of accepting a bribe. If Conservative Members felt that that was the implication, of course I am happy to set the record straight. I asked what the hon. Lady was to receive in return for talking out a Bill that many people in this country want to see passed today.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will it be helpful to the Chair and to the hon. Lady to know that we have no great difficulty about amendment No. 1, which the hon. Lady is moving now? In fact, if I accuse the Government of anything in regard to their amendments it is plagiarism. I redrafted the definition quickly and received praise from the Minister for doing it so quickly in the Standing Committee. On that understanding, can we now proceed? There is no point in the hon. Lady ignoring our willingness to accept amendment No. 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Lady.

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall proceed. After all, it is the will of the House that I should do so. I am trying to concentrate on definitions. I am not convinced that there would be widespread agreement on the meaning of "major life activities". It means different things to different people. Not all of us—

Mrs. Angela Browning: My hon. Friend has a reputation on these Benches for being a doughty fighter. I have to say to her today that she is in the wrong battle on the wrong side. In many matters connected with disability, people have to define general terminology. We have no difficulty with it in matters such as the disability living allowance, which covers a range of both physical and learning disabilities. Does she accept that the people who will have to make judicial decisions or judgments about the definition or the wording of the Bill will have no more difficulty than when doing so for other matters associated with social security and health?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. I am trying to point out that if we go for generalised terms, such


as those in the Bill, it could lead to endless legislation and argument. That would not help the people whom we are trying to help.
For example, the term "major life activities" is very ambiguous and means different things to different people. Not all of us want to climb mountains, but a one-legged man—who perhaps had a leg amputated—who wants to climb mountains and previously derived tremendous pleasure from doing so will probably consider that his major life activity has been substantially limited.
The definition does not catch disabilities which not merely limit people but totally prevent them from carrying out the activity in question. Nor can anyone say with certainty what having
a reputation as a person who has or had such an impairment",
is intended to mean and whether the impairment is physical or mental. Presumably the wording is not meant to deal with a person who cannot get a job or be provided with a service because people have heard that he or she has chronic asthma, because that is already covered. Therefore, it is intended to cover a person who does not have a condition, but is alleged to have it and consequently suffers the same disadvantage. That is probably the case, but one cannot say so with any certainty.
The definition is also too loose because it includes people with a history of an impairment. It could cover an impairment that did not lead to a substantial loss of function and therefore did not result in any disability. It could include someone with a short-term disability, which subsequently cleared up completely.As for "having a reputation" as a person with an impairment, I find it impossible to predict how those applying the provisions in the Bill might interpret those words, or how courts might decide cases brought under that part of the Bill.
The amendments offer alternative means of dealing with those problems, by providing replacement definitions of disabled people and disablement. The replacements would have the merit of drawing on existing defintions which have been shown to work in practice.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the hon. Lady finished?

Lady Olga Maitland: No, I was giving way.

Mr. Clarke: Opposition Members have got the point, so the hon. Lady is free to sit down and let us move on to a decision.

Lady Olga Maitland: That was a totally irrelevant intervention and it was certainly not helpful to the discussion.
Disability or disabled persons can be defined along the lines used in the National Assistance Act 1948, but without using some of the terminology in that Act which would nowadays offend disabled people. For example, the suggested definition should not use the words "dumb" or "deformity". In all essential respects, however, the new definitions reproduce ones that we already know work in that Act.

Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) could not have been more relevant. Did the hon. Lady hear me say that we are prepared to accept amendment No. 1? Will she now allow

us to move forward to consider other parts of the Bill? We could not do more than accept the amendment. Has she heard what we have said?

Lady Olga Maitland: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I choose to carry on with my explanation, for the benefit of the House.

Mr. John Cummings: You shabby person.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

Lady Olga Maitland: Because of the experience built up since 1948, those alternatives would offer a more secure start for the provisions in the Bill and would provide greater clarity about the scope of the groups covered. I commend the amendment to the House.
I shall now deal briefly with amendment No. 3, which is listed in the group. The amendment is intended to clarify the definition of employer and expands the definition of the Crown as an employer.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that when the hon. Lady said she was turning to amendment No. 3 she was turning to an amendment that has not been selected?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is grouped with amendment No. 1, so the hon. Lady is in order.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment also exempts the armed forces from the scope of the Bill.
The Bill's present reference to the Crown as an employer causes me some unease, because I am not sure that that term is strictly accurate. The amendment would offer a more familiar definition, similar to those used previously—for example, in section 85 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I am sure that the House will understand why our fighting forces must be in perfect physical condition—that surely speaks for itself. Those personnel are expected, at short notice, to be at the front line of battle anywhere and at any time. It would obviously be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for disabled people to be part of that fighting force. I know that the Ministry of Defence employs more than 1,000 disabled civilian staff, so disabled people already play an important role in supporting the armed services.
For the reasons that I have given, it is impossible for disabled people to take part in direct conflict.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Order. I do not answer to that word. I have not accepted the closure and that is that.

Mr. Stern: I should like to speak briefly to the amendments in my name.
Amendment No. 39 would delete the inclusion of legal services from the Bill's provisions. I am worried about that


inclusion, because, in many cases, the legal profession is organised on the basis of small, often one-man, firms. It strikes me that those firms would have great difficulty in complying with the provisions of the Bill, even on a time-delayed basis.
Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 62 would delete other services from the terms of clauses 6 and 17. The provisions of those clauses go too far without adequate consideration for the providers of those services, because they outlaw what might, in certain circumstances, appear to be discrimination even if it was not.
Amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 70 are technical and are designed to improve the wording of the Bill.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I have said to the House that we are prepared to accept amendment No. 1. In Committee, the Minister accepted that, on the question of definition, the sponsors of the Bill could not have been more helpful. We were concerned to rectify problems over section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948, which has been used by successive Ministers and Governments since then. I could not be more reasonable; I again ask the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) to proceed on the basis of our acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. Spring: I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 8 and clause 2(c). I applaud that measure in principle, but I have doubts about its workability in practice.
Disabled people do not form a homogeneous group and there is no viable statistical base from which one could determine whether direct or indirect discrimination was taking place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that an organisation called FAR in his constituency is very worried about what he is doing now, because in the next few minutes he intends to talk out a Bill which will affect 6.5 million people and he, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, will be responsible, against the wishes of those very disablement organisations in his constituency which are worried.

Mr. Spring: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has taken up a great deal of time in making interventions. I would leave it at that.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister commented earlier, there is a distinct difference between the case of minority and racial groups, for which anti-discrimination legislation can be implemented and is easier to tackle, and, for example, women. Therefore, I think that it will be unwise to proceed with that part of the clause.
Clause 2(c) deals essentially with the burdens on small business. During the recession, many small businesses were under considerable pressure. A small and perhaps struggling company with three or four employees may be unable to make the arrangements for the accommodation of disabled people that are suggested in the Bill. Although in principle I think that it is correct, in practice I believe that that would be unduly burdensome for the small business community.

Mr. Jenkin: It gives me very little pleasure to rise so late in the debate. [Interruption.] It is unfortunate that so much time has been taken up by bogus interventions and bogus points of order, raised by the Opposition. I have one amendment in my name, amendment No. 81, and that is what I wish to discuss.
It is incumbent on people who feel strongly in favour of the Bill that they recognise that those people who oppose the Bill, such as myself, are behaving in as public spirited a way as they are, because the Bill, as currently drafted, without amendment No. 81, is contrary to the interests of the people of the country and contrary to the interests of disabled people. It is sad that the hopes of disabled people have been so falsely led by expectations that the Bill might become law as currently drafted.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who intervened earlier and put up with an enormous amount of bitterness and barracking with great courage and fortitude. The Bill seeks to apply all its measures to air transport, and I wish to comment on that briefly, as there is little time.
Aircraft are not like trains. They have little spare room and a requirement to accommodate disabled people would require a large number of charter airlines to remove large numbers of seats. That may well be desirable and most airlines do their best to accommodate disabled people, but there are important practical safety measures that cannot be incorporated and, if incorporated, would not be adequate. Many civil airline companies might well lose their right to operate if they were subject to that legislation.

Mr. Berry: Read the Bill.

Mr. Jenkin: I am happy to read the Bill.
The problem is the broad definition of disability and the way in which that is likely to be subject to endless litigation. I also believe that the measure is incompatible with European Community law because, if it were sought to apply the legislation to all airlines, it would apply to airlines operating into the United Kingdom and that would represent a restraint on trade.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I object strongly to having to wear this rubbish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There will be no point of order then.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: All right—I shall wear the hat. Wearing such nonsense makes us the laughing stock of the western world.
Will Hansard record that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) was the Member of Parliament who talked out the Bill this year? He was on his feet when the Division was called. Will that be recorded?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was no one on his feet.

Mr. Jenkin: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With your permission, may I say that I was not on my feet when the Division was called.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a totally unnecessary point of order as I had already said that—[Interruption.] Order below the Gangway.

Mr. Alan Howarth: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that there is a proposal that this Parliament should give procedural advice to the new South African Parliament on how it should be run. Some further careful reflection is needed on our procedures for private Members' Bills; we are not yet in a position to provide any model.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Dicks: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that we were discussing private Members' business today, not Government business. Could the message be passed back to the appropriate quarter that hon. Members, especially Back-Bench Members, expect private Members' days to be private Members' days?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman made that point two or three times during the debate.

The House having divided: Ayes 1, Noes 54.

Division No. 230]
[2.30 pm


AYES


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Lady Olga Maitland and



Mr. Michael Stern.


NOES


Adams, Mrs lrene
Lynne, Ms Liz


Austin-Walker, John
McCartney, Ian


Benton, Joe
McMaster, Gordon


Berry, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Bowden, Andrew
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Clapham, Michael
Raynsford, Nick


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Congdon, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Sims, Roger


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Dicks, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Dover, Den
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Soley, Clive


Gerrard, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Hannam, Sir John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hinchliffe, David
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Waller, Gary


Hoyle, Doug
Wicks, Malcolm


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)



Lidington, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. John Cummings.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Two o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered on Friday 20 May.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you consider discussing the progress of this Bill with Madam Speaker? As you know only too well, last Friday the House voted unanimously, calling on the Government to provide time to get this Bill for disabled people through the House.
Today, the Government have taken part in an escapade to thwart the Bill's passage. Could you tell us, after consulting Madam Speaker, exactly what procedures will be put in place to enable the wish of the House that was expressed last Friday to be brought to fruition? Six and a half million disabled people expect the House to observe the two unanimous votes: 235 to nil on Second Reading, and a unanimous vote again last Friday.
It is high time this Government were brought to book. If the House is to go up on 15 July for three months holiday, will you at least ask that one or two days be found for this Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that Madam Speaker is already fully aware of that request, as the hon. Gentleman put it to her earlier. [Interruption.] Order. I am quite capable of conducting the business of the Chair without help from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Roger Berry: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Berry: No, but it is clearly related. The fact of the matter is that a clear majority of Members of this House have expressed their support, in writing, for the Bill. Last Friday, no Minister voted against the motion to allow time for the remaining stages to be completed. That being so, how can time not be provided? Will the Minister assure disabled people that it will be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, and, in any case, it has been made time and again in the the debate.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are aware of my exchange earlier today with your predecessor in the Chair about the parliamentary replies that I am expecting and awaiting from the Lord President of the Council about whether the Government were involved in drafting the amendments in the names of private Members.
I must inform you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have still not heard from the Lord President. Your predecessor in the Chair said that he was quite certain that those on the Treasury Bench would have heard what I said—but there has been no reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that they have heard it; but I recollect that the Minister earlier gave an assurance on that very point.

Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you, on behalf of the House, to convey to the Leader of the House the fact that it would be extremely welcome if he came here and made a statement, before we rise this afternoon, on the Government's plans to provide further time for this legislation—in accordance with the resolution that the House passed a week ago today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no doubt that that has been heard by those on the Front Bench.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any Standing Order that applies to a resolution of the House such as the one passed last week? If there is not, is it not correct to say, in the old phrase, that if the Government take no notice of such a resolution, they do so at their peril?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is just a matter of opinion.

Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your response to my earlier point of order, but what the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said was that he personally had not been


involved. I then asked him whether the Government had been involved in any way in drafting the so-called private Members' amendments. There was no response to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said earlier. No doubt hon. Members on the Front Bench will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.

Mr. Terry Dicks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair is responsible for how the House is seen by people outside. May I bring it to your attention, in having to implement that, that the House today, because of the behaviour of hon. Members, particularly on the Front Bench, did itself no justice at all? There are some issues that are political between both sides of the House, and there always will be, but the issue that we were debating, for once, went beyond politics, yet politics was brought in. I think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the Chair was responsible for the behaviour of the House, it would behave much better than it does and would come across much better throughout the country.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

RACIAL HATRED AND VIOLENCE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [11 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 24 June.

WITHDRAWAL OF MEDICAL TREATMENT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 June.

FAIR TREATMENT FOR WIDOWERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 June.

NEWLY QUALIFIED DRIVERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day?

Mrs. Angela Browning: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), whose Bill it is, Friday 20 May.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 May.

HORSES (PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR FOR YOUNG RIDERS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 24 June.

MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 20 May.

NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 13 May.

NATIONAL PARKS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 13 May.

Rosyth Naval Base

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Michael Brown.]

Ms Rachel Squire: I am grateful to have the opportunity today to initiate an urgently needed debate on the future of Rosyth naval base. I speak not just for myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), but for the vast majority of our constituents, a considerable number of whom are service personnel or retired service personnel. Some of them will have been disabled through active service, and they would want me to deplore the conduct of the Government in the debate that we had earlier today on the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
The view of people throughout Scotland is that this debate should be totally unnecessary—indeed, it would be totally unnecessary if only we could believe the Government. Only three years ago, Rosyth naval base was threatened with closure. The strategic and economic arguments won the day. They should not need to be repeated. Of course, the Minister and other Conservative Members have said that there is no need for them to be repeated, because no decision has yet been taken on its future. Let me explain why we do not believe that; why we believe that there is about anti-Rosyth bias in key areas of the Ministry of Defence, evident in the defence costs study; and why we believe that the Government cannot be trusted to keep their commitments. I will then go on to argue once again the strategic case for Rosyth as the minor war vessel operating base, and hope that the Minister will listen and that the Government will keep their promises.
No one can deny that Rosyth has been singled out for discriminatory treatment: it was the only base targeted for closure in 1991; the dockyard, which for years had been promised submarine refitting work then had it taken away; and the core group study of the defence costs, which deals with the rationalisation of naval bases, air stations and associated businesses, was led by Rear Admiral Dunt, who is known to be opposed to Rosyth.
I remind the Minister that in 1991 the Select Committee on Defence stated at paragraph 7.12 of its 1 1 th report:
Concern was voiced in the House and elsewhere about the manner in which the future of the United Kingdom's Naval Bases was being determined … We sought simply to establish whether the Review was conducted by the Ministry in a manner that was fair to all parties and based on sound and objective analysis of the options available.
Paragraph 7.18 stated:
In future analysis the Ministry must ensure that all options are given equal consideration. It is not clear that this was the case with the Naval Support Review.
Those criticisms of three years ago have apparently not been taken on board by the Ministry of Defence in its conduct of the defence costs study.
The duplicity that is once again involved and the failure to provide open information are disgraceful. The only way in which we have managed to get information is through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and through the investigative journalism of a number of newspapers. I mention in particular the Daily Record, the Evening News in Edinburgh, and The Sunday Times.
The latest study of Rosyth began with a questionnaire being circulated to all service personnel asking where they

would like to be moved if the base closed. I understand that no similar questionnaire has been sent to all personnel at other bases. That seems to be a clear example of anti-Rosyth bias.
We hear of plans to the effect that when HMS Edinburgh comes in later this year to be refitted at Rosyth dockyard, its stores and stocks, instead of being kept at Rosyth naval base, will be transported to Portsmouth, apparently in the expectation that when the refit is completed in 1995–96 Rosyth naval base will no longer be there to restock and re-store the ship.
It seems that a decision has already been made. Yesterday, I received a letter from a concerned member of the electorate. The envelope has a Plymouth postmark and the letter states that recently in Plymouth a very senior civil servant formally announced to his subordinates that the decision to close Rosyth naval base within three to five years has already been made and that an announcement to that effect will be forthcoming from the Government during the latter half of this year. I await with interest the Minister's comments on that information.
It is all depressingly familiar. In 1991, it was stated that there were no plans for the closure of Rosyth naval base. Then it was stated that all naval bases were being treated equally. The Select Committee did not believe it then and neither did we, and we do not believe it now. It seems that all the Ministers who are involved, including the Prime Minister, have denied information and have been deliberately vague about the commitments and promises that they are prepared to make.
Let me deal with the strategic advantages of Rosyth naval base and its importance in the defence of our country. The Minister will recall that in the debate on the Royal Navy on 17 February I spent some time outlining some of the strategic advantages. I shall not repeat all that I said in that debate. I am not the only one who says that there are strategic advantages: that view is shared by senior naval personnel. As the Minister is aware, a report entitled "Rosyth: an Appreciation" was leaked to us this week. That report was written by some senior naval personnel and states that Rosyth has an operational effectiveness and that the Forth is a large expanse of sheltered waters with a full range of mine-hunting conditions which are a vital ingredient in today's maritime strategy.
There are permanently established danger areas for the firing of mine-hunting charges and the laying of buoys. No other stretch of water in Scotland provides such ideal training conditions for United Kingdom and NATO units. Being geographically close to the Clyde, the locality of the Forth provides excellent facilities from which to springboard support to main operational areas. Facilities still exist for mine countermeasure vessels to be base-ported at Rosyth with a small increase in personnel support costs. The waters of the Forth and their geographical proximity to the Clyde provide an ideal springboard for effective international operations.
Rosyth's naval base has the primary waterfront engineering support organisation for the operational minor war vessel flotilla. The engineering facilities there are the Royal Navy's largest and most comprehensively equipped in support of mine countermeasures. Particular to Rosyth is the naval and dockyard expertise in fibreglass, MWV engine logic racks, minehunting navigation systems and minesweeping equipment. The close proximity of those excellent facilities to the dockyard gives Rosyth the lead as an unprecedented centre of engineering excellence. Such


support could be provided elsewhere only after substantial capital investment. That would waste the £63 million spent in the past 20 years on establishing the site as a specialist facility for minor war vessels.
The report states that harmony rules are the cornerstone of naval personnel policy—although I must say that they are not the cornerstone of the Government's defence policy. Rosyth is a popular base. The majority of the naval personnel stationed there live in the east of Scotland. Rosyth underpins naval recruitment in Scotland and the north of England. One third of all naval recruits come from the north. There is a regular exchange of personnel between ship and shore, which sustains staff competence and provides a valuable base for minor war vessel support in future. If the base is seen to be reduced further with a view to closure, that would greatly damage morale. The people of Scotland would see such a move as a slap in the face for their years of loyalty and service to the defence not only of Scotland but of the whole United Kingdom.
To summarise Rosyth's strategic advantages, it is an ideal base with excellent facilities, a centre of engineering excellence and the only facility that can fully meet the requirements and demands of minesweeper training and operational work-up. Such a linkage is central to the values of the naval support command and establishes the partnership between the command and the fleet.
Clearly, the Government are looking for savings. I ask them to acknowledge the savings already made by Rosyth's naval base. Since it was altered to a minor war vessel operating base in 1991, it has achieved far greater savings than anticipated. The long-term costings of 1992 estimated a figure of £518 million, but that has reduced to £312 million—an overall reduction in running costs on the original naval base cost of 40 per cent. Can the Minister's own Department claim to have achieved such savings? The total assets supported by the base are well in excess of £800 million, so it plainly offers value for money. The authors of the appreciation report believe that further savings could be made by sharing mutual services between the base and the dockyard.
A further reduction at the base will waste money, not save it. A large number of civilian and naval personnel have left the base. By next January, as part of those savings, there will have been an agreed 800 civilian job losses and 1,400 naval staff will have moved on. However, in the final report of defence costs study No.10, Rear Admiral Dunt and others want to move the supplies and transport sections of Rosyth to—surprise, surprise—Portsmouth, leaving Rosyth providing only waterfront support and with 135 people, as compared with more than 1,000 just three years ago.
Paragraph 7.22 of the Defence Select Committee report of 1991 states:
Cost-benefit analysis is clearly the key to deciding the most effective way of rationalising support facilities: that it was being done so late in the day is frankly extraordinary…MOD witnesses seemed to be suggesting to us that Ministers will be given costings only in support of the recommendations made by the Review. If that were so, it would be most unsatisfactory … We trust that Ministers insisted on seeing costings for all options before making their decisions. We urge the Ministry to provide the House with full costings of the proposed changes in naval support".
I urge the MOD and the Government to ensure that such information is made fully available to the House and that a full, informed and open debate is held before any recommendations, let alone decisions, are made.
As I want to give the Minister ample time to reply, I will close by reminding him of some of the commitments that have been made to Rosyth naval base. On 16 July 1991, the then Secretary of State for Defence said:
Following a thorough review of basing arrangements, I have decided that when the new force structure is in place ships of the Royal Navy will continue to be based at each of the naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport, Rosyth and Faslane."—[Official Report, 16 July 1991; Vol. 195, c.149.]
That statement was made in the full knowledge of the impact on naval commitments of the end of the cold war.
A letter from the private secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland to the leader of Fife regional council stated:
The Secretary of State for Defence has indicated that the base will have a continuing role, retaining about two-thirds of the service personnel, and about the same proportion of the civilian workforce at the base and dockyard.
A letter to Fife regional council from the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is now the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland stated:
The decision made sense in defence and public expenditure terms and takes careful account of all the arguments that have been advanced in Rosyth's favour.
Finally, a letter in March 1992 from the private secretary to the Prime Minister to the leader of Fife regional council stated:
Ministers have made it clear that Rosyth Naval Base will continue to have an important role to play in Britain's defence.
Rosyth has done everything that has been asked of it and more. The strategic case, objectively costed and judged against the alternatives, will establish the logic of retaining Rosyth naval base as the cost-effective option for minor war vessel support. The task should be consolidation and commitment in respect of what the base has achieved.
I am not asking for special treatment for Rosyth. I am asking for equal treatment and for recognition of the real need for an objective review of the efficiency and effectiveness of all the naval bases currently under study. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and, I hope, to receiving some straight answers and assurances that the base's future is secure.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on her good fortune in securing this debate. In the two years since she entered the House and since I became Minister, I have formed a healthy respect for the way in which she champions the interests of her constituents at Rosyth and elsewhere. She is, indeed, a doughty fighter for them and this debate is further evidence of her concern.
The Government, of course, recognise the importance of the base to the hon. Lady's constituents, to the people of the immediate area and to Fife generally. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to some of the recent concerns about the future of the base which have been prompted by the current study into defence support costs, known as "Front Line First". I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises and accepts that many issues in the national interest are currently under consideration in the context of the "Front Line First" study. Some of them may have a bearing on Rosyth naval base. She will understand that because the defence costs study exercise is not yet completed and because Ministers genuinely have not reached decisions on any of the studies, it is not possible for me to comment in


too much detail while our internal deliberations are proceeding. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to be helpful to the hon. Lady.

Ms Rachel Squire: The Minister says that the defence costs study has not yet been completed. Has study group No. 10, which deals specifically with the rationalisation of the naval bases, completed its study, especially in respect of Rosyth naval base?

Mr. Aitken: I think that the hon. Lady is getting her numbers mixed up, but let us not quibble over details about defence costs study numbers. The study is completed, but the study is simply a recommendation. That recommendation has not yet been decided on by Ministers, who, as I shall explain later, have to take into account wider considerations which the hon. Lady properly raised. There has been a great deal of rather excitable speculation about the base in recent weeks. I am glad, therefore, to address the issues that the hon. Lady has raised and to put the matter in its true perspective. I shall begin with a little background which is essential fully to appreciate the current circumstances.
In July 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) announced plans to reduce Rosyth naval base to a minor war vessels operating base by 1995–96. Those plans were confirmed in early 1992 and since then work to achieve an orderly transition to minor war vessels base status has been proceeding well. The commitment and dedication of the work force, both service and civilian, towards that end has been commendable and I place on record my appreciation for it.
In recent months, the base has seen considerable activity. The move of the type 42 destroyers to Portsmouth will be completed later this year and the last type 42 operating out of Rosyth, HMS Edinburgh, will formally transfer her base port. I shall deal here with one of the hon. Lady's points which she seemed to think was proof of a sinister, anti-Rosyth conspiracy. She saw the fact that HMS Edinburgh had had her spares taken out at Portsmouth as proof of an anti-Rosyth bias. As I just said, HMS Edinburgh is one of the type 42 destroyers, all of which are moving their base port to Portsmouth later this year.
It is standard practice for vessels going into and out of refit to be de-stored and re-stored at their base port. In Edinburgh's case, that will be Portsmouth. That is what is happening and that has already been explained to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. There is no connection between Edinburgh's refit and Rosyth's status as a naval base.

Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the Minister for that clarification. However, does he agree that it is standard practice that if a ship is being brought in to be refitted at one of the dockyards, the stores are kept nearby so that they can be put back on the ship at the earliest opportunity? If he says that that is not the practice, will he explain why money is being spent transporting material more than 500 miles when it could be kept just 200 or 300 yd away?

Mr. Aitken: I have just tried to explain what is standard practice. The standard practice is for a ship to be de-stored and re-stored at its base port. As was announced some time ago, HMS Edinburgh's base port will be Portsmouth. That

is why the de-storing and re-storing takes place there. That is the simple explanation, which has nothing to do with Rosyth naval base.
Time is getting on. The hon. Lady is eating into my time. I shall do my best to cover her points, although it is becoming difficult to do so in the time available. I shall perhaps skip the background, although it is important, and turn to the key matters that she raised. She seemed to be convinced that Rosyth had been singled out for special and unfair treatment by the defence costs study. She is completely wrong in this matter. All naval bases were examined and there was no discriminatory treatment for Rosyth. The study was of all naval infrastructure.
I appeal to the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends not to personalise criticisms against Admiral Dunt in the same way as, I am sorry to say, some time ago criticism was personalised against Admiral White. It is not the admirals who make decisions. It is Ministers who make decisions and they are responsible for them. All that I can say is that Admiral Dunt, with a team which is well qualified to discharge its remit, carried out the study with impartiality and integrity. Ministers will decide on their recommendations.
I agree that the turbulence to which the latest examination of Rosyth gives rise, following so closely on the 1992 decision to reduce the base to a minor war vessels level, is unfortunate in some respects. I have a genuine human sympathy for the real anxieties that the current uncertainties create among the work force and their families at Rosyth. One would have to be inhuman not to feel some sympathy. We hope to get the uncertainty over with as soon as possible and announce the results of the defence costs study in July at the latest.
It does not help matters if the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends give the uncertainties a spin of bitterness by allegations of deceit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was unfairly accused of deceit. I repeat what he said in the House of Commons on 5 February 1991 when he was asked about the base at Prime Minister's Question Time:
No decision has been made to close Rosyth or any other naval base. We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken." —[Official Report, 5 February 1991; Vol.185, c.159.]
That is hardly the great assurance or broken promise that the hon. Lady seemed to allege.
The hon. Lady made great play of the brochure and praised the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for his great role as an investigative journalist from the Daily Record in uncovering great leaks. In the second world war one of the most potent pieces of military equipment was the Browning gun. What we are seeing now in Scotland is a familiar new weapon—the Gordon Browning media gun instead of the Browning machine gun.
I have the brochure here. It could hardly be a more obvious document. It almost resembles an estate agent's brochure. There is no tremendous secret about it. It was produced last year well before the defence costs study and it was intended as an internal document and produced for local management. In no sense does it seek to establish a case for Rosyth as a centre for minor war vessels in the context of an overall review of naval infrastructure. That is what the current study is doing. It is wrong to treat it as a


case for Rosyth's retention. However, all the points made in it were perfectly fair and have been taken into account as part of the defence costs study work.
The study into naval bases has been intensive and thorough. An enormous amount of work has gone into the examination of various aspects of the present arrangements and Rosyth's excellent record as a centre for minor war vessels is fully recognised, as indeed are those of the other naval bases. It is an objective study and all those aspects will have to be taken into account when determining the way ahead.
The 1991 study of Rosyth correctly took into account the base's capabilities and other relevant factors. Our latest deliberations will take due account of all those. Equally, we have to take note of emerging operational trends affecting the deployment patterns of minor war vessels. I assure the hon. Lady that there is no intention of discounting in any way Rosyth's claim for basing minor war vessels, but simply an intention to demonstrate that there is a range of factors that we must assess and balance against each other if we are to reach the best decision in economic, operational and value-for-money terms.
The hon. Lady mentioned the widespread reliance of the Fife economy on defence activities in the region. We accept that point and assure her that those important considerations are clearly recognised. Clearly those are matters primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

State for Scotland, but all the points that she has put forward will be taken into account and considered carefully.
In summary, I emphasise that we recognise and pay tribute to the vital role that Rosyth naval base has performed in support of the fleet. It has adapted to change, as its current transition to a minor war vessels base shows. There is a lot to admire at Rosyth, not least its dedicated and skilled work force.
At the same time, I do not apologise to the House or to the country for including Rosyth within the ambit of the defence costs study. In today's circumstances, it is our duty to explore all possibilities for securing greater value for money in delivering our operational capability.
As I emphasised, the decisions will be made by Ministers and will come only after the fullest consideration of all the factors involved. Whatever the outcome of our studies in connection with Rosyth naval base, the hon. Lady can be assured that our decisions will be based solidly on what makes the best operational and financial sense and that—

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Three o'clock.